Just Decided – Latest Judgement – Jan 12th, 2015

Legalpedia Electronic Citation:LER[2014]CA/C/228/2013

Areas of Law:
UNDEFENDED LIST, COURT, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, FAIR HEARING

Summary of Facts:
The Claimant/Respondent who was a former branch manager of the Defendant’s /Appellant’s Bank instituted an action against the Defendant/ Appellant in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State under the undefended list claiming the sum of N760, 237.50 (Seven Hundred and sixty thousand, two Hundred and Thirty Seven Naira and Fifty Kobo) being pre- merger gratuity that accrued to the Claimant as former staff and Manager of the Ikot Ekpene branch which sum and accrued interest the Defendant/Appellant has refused to pay to the Claimant/Respondent despite repeated demands. The Defendant/Appellant filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to hear the case. The lower Court delivered its ruling dismissing the Preliminary Objection and entered judgment for the Claimant in the said sum and interest thereon at the rate of 21% until the judgment debt is fully liquidated. .Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Defendant/Appellant lodged an appeal to this court.

Held:

Appeal Dismissed

Issues for Determination:
“Whether considering the facts and circumstances of this and the provisions of section 254C (1) (a) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, the High Court of Cross River State is seized with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this suit.

The facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law considered, was the lower Court in breach of the Appellants right of fair hearing when immediately after dismissing the Appellants Preliminary Objection, it proceeded to enter final judgment against the Appellant without giving the Appellant an opportunity to file its defence processes to defend the suit

Rationes:
JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT – EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
“The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court covers only disputes arising from payment or non-payment of the items above mentioned which of course applies only to employees, workers, civil or public servants of the erring organization, agency or parastatal concerned.” PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEEDING –PURPOSE OF THE UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEEDING
“The undefended list proceeding is meant to shorten the hearing of a suit where the claim is for a liquidated sum. It is infact designed to avoid the intricases of pleadings in a normal hearing in our court”. PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE – AN UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN COMPLEX CASES WITH CONTROVERSIAL TRIABLE ISSUES
“Although the procedure under the undefended list has the advantages of speedy and quick dispensation of justice, it has its own limitation in that it is not an appropriate procedure in complex cases with controversial triable issues”. PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST – NATURE OF A CLAIM UNDER THE UNDEFENDED LIST
“A claim under the undefended list comes in the form of the recovery of debt or liquidated sum of money demanded and that is the position of the Law.” PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE – UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE IS USUALLY REGULATED BY THE RULES OF COURT
“The undefended list procedure being of a special procedure, it is usually regulated by the rules of the Court under which it is commenced.” PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

LIQUIDATED SUM – FACTORS THAT DETERMINES LIQUIDATED SUM
“On the other hand, many factors determine when a liquidated sum is applicable viz:

A. The sum must be arithmetically ascertainable without further investigation.

B. If it is in reference to a contract, the parties to the contract must have mutually and unequivocally agreed on fixed amount payable on a breach. ,

C. The argued and fixed sum must be known prior to the breach”. PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA
COMPETENCE OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETENCE OF COURT
“For a Court to be competent to entertain a case the suit must have been initiated by due process of the applicable law, before a panel that is properly constituted and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. See Madukolum vs. Nkemdilim (2001) 46 WRN and re-stated in Oloba vs. Akoreje (1988) 3 NWLR pt 84 page 508, (1988) 7 SC (pt. 1) 15 (1988) 7 SCNJ (pt.1) page 56.”PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

JURISDICTION OF COURT – A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
“A challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and can be taken at any time even for the first time on appeal and or suo moto by the appeal Court. However, where it is the Court that raised it, it will then call upon the parties to address it on same, or where it is discovered that it acted without jurisdiction then without much ado. It will fall back on its inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own decision in the matter. See Sokoto State Government vs. Kamdex Nig Ltd. (2007) 7 NWLR pt 104 page 466 (2007)3 SC (pt. 1) 1.”PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

LACK OF JURISDICTION – A DEFECT IN COMPETENCE IS NOT ONLY INTRINSIC BUT EXTRINSIC TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION
“Where a Court lacks jurisdiction, there is want of competence to try the matter. If a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. This is because a defect in competence is not only intrinsic but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. See Labryi vs. Anretiola (1998) 8 NWLR 358 page 139, Katto vs. CBN (2000) 18 WRN 108 Akegbojo vs. Ataga (1998) 1 NWLR pt. 534 page 459, Ogundipe vs. Akinloye (2002) 10 NWLR pt 755, page 341.”PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT
“It is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. See Tukur vs. Governor, Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR pt 117 page 517. Also jurisdiction of a Court can also be determined by the law that established it. See Ajoinale vs. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 NWLR pt 191 page 257.”PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE – PURPOSE OF UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE
“The undefended list procedure is a special kind of procedure provided for the purpose of fast-tracking trial of cases where the claim of the Claimant is a liquidated money demand and meant to avoid witty Defendants from using legal subterfuge or tricks from delaying clear cases of liquidated debts See Denton West vs Muoma (2010) 2 NWLR pt 1177 page 119, UBA Plc vs. Jaragba(2007) 31 NSCQR page 144”. PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

RULES OF COURT – RULES OF COURT ARE MEANT TO BE OBEYED AND BINDS ALL PARTIES
“It is now firmly established that Rules of Court must be followed strictly unless the Court is given a direction under them. In other word, rules of Court are meant to be obeyed and the said rules bind all parties beforethe Court. See the Hon Justice Kalu Anjah vs. African Newspapers of (Nig) Ltd (1992) 7 SCNJ (Pt.1) page 47 at 48. Ajayi& Anor .vs. Omorogbe (1993) 7 SCNJ (PT. 1) Page 168, Miss Ezeanah vs. Alhaji Atta mamoud (2004) 17 WRN 1 (2004) 7 NWLR pt. 873 page 468 at 502, (2004) 2 SCNJ 200 per Pats Acholonu JSC ( of blessed memory).” PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

RULES OF COURT – RULES OF COURT PARTAKE OF THE NATURE OF SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION
“It must be stressed that rules of Court are not mere rules but they partake of the nature of subsidiary legislation by virtue of section 18 (1) of the interpretation Act and therefore, have a force of law. See also Akanbi & Ors vs. Alao & Anor (1989) 5 SCNJ 10 at 13”. PER P. O. ELECHI, JCA

FAIR HEARING – MEANING OF FAIR HEARING
“Fair hearing only means that a party should be given an opportunity to be heard and present his case before the Court. However if a litigant who has all the opportunity in the world to present his case before the Court fails to do so, he cannot be heard when he turns around to complain of breach of his fair
hearing. See A. Mohammed vs. Kano N. A (1968) 1 All NLR 424, Bomor vs. Ekiyor (1997) 9 NWLR Pt. 519 Page 1, Otu vs. Udouna(2000) 13 NWLR Pt 683 page 157.”PER P. O.ELECHI, JCA

Statues Referred to:
Akwa Ibom State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended
Cross River State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009
National Industrial Court Act

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

Areas of Law:
GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, JURISDICTION

Summary of Facts:
The 1st and 2nd Respondents obtained judgment against Urue Offong-Oruko Local Government Council in Suit No. HOK/UND.1/2003. They later obtained a Court order to attach the bank Account of Urue Offong- Oruko Local Government Council (the judgment debtor), maintained by the 3rd Respondent who is a bank in the total sum of Four Million, Four Hundred and Seventy, Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty Eight Naira, Seventy- six kobo (N4, 473,428.76) with the cost of Three thousand naira. Neither the 3rd Respondent nor the Judgment Debtor paid the attached sum. The 1st and 2nd Respondent were then prompted to institute a Garnishee proceeding seeking an order nisi attaching the said sum which was granted and was later made absolute. The Appellant was ordered to pay out from the United Bank for Africa’s Plc., cash reserve deposit domiciled with the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held
Appeal allowed

Issues for Determination
Whether the garnishee proceedings in Suit No. HU/MISC.75/2011 was properly constituted in terms of parties to vest the trial Court with jurisdiction.

Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law to have made absolute its Garnishee order nisi of 8th June, 2011

Rationes
RESPONDENTS BRIEF – EFFECT OF FAILURE BY A RESPONDENT TO FILE HIS BRIEF
“By virtue of Order 18 Rule 10 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, all that will happen to a respondent who fails to file a brief is that he cannot be heard in oral argument. But, the appellant must still convince the appellate court that the appeal ought to be allowed and the judgment or orders of the lower court be upturned. The appeal succeeds on the merit of the grounds of appeal and the issues canvassed thereon and not on the absence of a respondent’s brief, Cameroon Airlines v. Mike E. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR-827, (2011) 4 NWLR 512: Echere v. Ezirike (2006) 12 NWLR (PT 994) 386, (2006) LPELR-I000(SC) .’’PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF- A RESPONDENT WHO FAILS TO FILE HIS BRIEF WILL BE DEEMED NOT TO BE INTERESTED IN THE APPEAL AND HAS AGREED TO BE BOUND BY THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL.
‘‘Such respondent who fails to file, a respondent’s brief will be deemed not to be interested in the appeal and, be deemed to have agreed to be bound, by the outcome of ,the appeal; Sofolahan v. Folakan(1999) 10 NWLR (Pt 621) 86 at 95.’’PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

JURISDICTION- THERE MUST BE A COMPETENT PLAINTIFF AND A COMPETENT DEFENDANT BEFORE A COURT CAN BE VESTED WITH JURISDICTION
‘‘It is not in controversy that in order for an action to be properly constituted, so as to vest jurisdiction in the court to adjudicate on it, there must be a competent plaintiff and a competent defendant.’’ PER. O. A.OTISI, JCA

LEGAL PERSONALITY- IT IS ONLY NATURAL PERSONS, AND JURISTIC OR ARTIFICIAL PERSONS THAT CAN SUE OR BE SUED
‘‘As a general principle, it is only natural persons, that is, human beings and juristic or artificial persons such as companies incorporated under the Companies Act are competent to sue or be sued. No action can be commenced by or brought against any party other than a natural person or persons, unless such party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly or by common law either a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued.’’ PER. O.A. OTISI, JCA

LEGAL PERSONALITY- NO ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST ANY PARTY OTHER THAN A NATURAL PERSON(S) UNLESS SUCH A PARTY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY STATUTE
‘‘The law does recognize that apart from, natural and Juristic persons, some non-legal entities, can sue and be sued eonomine. No action can be brought by, or against any party other than a natural person or persons unless such a party has been given by statute, expressly or,impliedly, either:-

(a) a legal persona under the name by which it sues or is sued, e.g. corporation sole and aggregate;

(b) a right to sue or be sued by that name e.g.,partnerships, trade unions, friendly societies and foreign institutions authorized by their own law to sue and be sued but not incorporated. See: Fawehinmi v. N.B.A (No. 2) (1989) 2 N. W.L.R. (Pt.105) 558, (1989) 4 S.C (PT 1) 63; Carlen (Nig) Ltd v. UNIJOS (1994) 1 N. W.L.R. (Pt.323) 631; Ataguba v.Gura (Nig) Ltd (2005) 6 MJSC 156.’’PER. O.A. OTISI, JCA

LEGAL PERSONALITY-A SUIT INSTITUTED BY A NON-JURISTIC PERSON OR AGAINST A NON-JURISTIC PERSON IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.
‘‘A suit thus instituted by a non-juristic person or against a non-juristic person is not sustainable. A court can only assume jurisdiction over juristic persons; MadukoluV Nkemdilim(supra); Maersk Line v. Addide Investments Ltd. (2002) 11 NWLR (PT 778) 317, (2002)l LPELR-ymi(SC); Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd v. General Manager G.B.OIIivant Ltd (1961) ALL N.L.R. 116.’’PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT- WHERE AN ACT IS VOID, IT IS VOID AND NOTHING CAN BE ADDED TO IT.
‘‘It is trite law that where an act is void, it is void and nothing can be added to it; ex nihilo nihil fit, UAC V. Macfoy (1961)3 ALL ER 1172. It is void and the court is bereft of the necessary vires to entertain the suit, which is incompetent.’’ PER. O.A. OTISI, JCA

INCOMPETENT SUIT- PROCEEDINGS OR ORDERS ARISING FROM AN INCOMPETENT SUIT AMOUNTS TO A NULLITY
‘‘Any proceedings or orders arising from an incompetent suit amount to a nullity; Nzom v. Jinadu (1987) LPELR-2143(SC),(1987) ANLR 377. Such incompetent action is liable to be struck out; The Administrators/Executors of the Estate of Gen. Sani Abacha (Deceased) v. Eke-Spiff (2009) LPELR- 3152(SC); Ifedapo Community Bank Ltd Vs Eternal Order Of C. &.S. Church, Saki Branch(supra),’’PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

EXECUTION OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS – PROCEDURE FOR EXECUTION OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 86 OF THE SHERIFF AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT
“The procedure for execution if a garnishee fails to pay into court the amount due to the judgment debtor, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings; or if the garnishee does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him, is clearly spelt out in Section 86 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. Such procedure does not include declaring the garnishee a judgment debtor and proceeding to declare another body a garnishee to the former garnishee now turned into judgment debtor”.PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS – DUTY OF A COURT WHERE A GARNISHEE DISPUTES HIS LIABILITY- SECTION 87 OF THE SHERIFF AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT
“By virtue of Section 87 if the garnishee appears and disputes his liability, the trial court, rather than ordering execution to issue, may order, that any issue or question necessary for determining his liability be tried or determined in any manner in which any issue or question in any proceedings maybe tried.’’ PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE NOT CHALLENGED OR CONTROVERTED IS DEEMED ADMITTED
‘‘The position of the law remains that affidavit evidence which is not challenged or controverted howsoever is deemed admitted and can be relied upon by a court:; Registered Trustees of NACHPN v MHWUN (2008) 1 S. C. (PT 111)1, (2008) ,34 NSCQR Pt, 1 321; Henry Stephens Engineering Ltd v S.A. Yakubu (Nig.) Ltd (2009) 10 NWLR (PT 1149) 416,1 (2009) LPELR-1363(SC)Tukur v. Uba (2012) LPELR-9337(SC).’’PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

CASH RESERVE DEPOSIT- CASH DEPOSIT RESERVE IS STATUTORILY MAINTAINED BY ALL BANKS
‘‘Cash Reserve Deposits are statutorily maintained by all banks. See: Section 15(1)the Banks and other Financial Institutions Act and, Section 45 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2007.’’ PER. O. A. OTISI, JCA

Statues Referred to:
Banks and other Financial Institutions Act
Central Bank of Nigeria (Establishment) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2007
Court of Appeal Rules, 2011
Sheriff and Civil Process Act

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

Areas of Law:
CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL, EVIDENCE

Summary of Facts
The Accused/Appellant and two others were charged at the High Court of Sokoto State with an offence of armed-robbery contrary to section 2 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The trial Court convicted the Accused/Appellant and the other Accused persons for an offence of attempted armed-robbery. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Accused/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held
Appeal Dismissed

Issues for Determination
Whether the trial court was right in convicting the Appellant on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution

Rationes
PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – ON WHOM LIES THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
“In criminal proceedings the onus is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. See Yongo V C.O.P [1992] NWLR (Pt 257) 36 Ogundiyan V The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt 181) 519.” PER T.O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A

DOUBT IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE – ANY REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE PROSECUTION’S CASE MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED PERSON
“Any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case must be resolved in favour of the accused see Okonji V The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 52) 959.”PER T.O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST BE USED ALONGSIDE OTHER EVIDENCE NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
“A confessional statement properly proved can sustain a conviction but it must be established by some other evidence no matter how slightly – see Mumuni V State [1975] 6 SC. 66,Nwanghomu V The State (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt 327) 380.”PER T.O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A

CONTRADICTIONS IN PROSECUTION’S CASE – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION THAT MAY BE FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
“Only material contradictions in the prosecution’s case which have disparaging effect on the case and go to the substance of the case can vitiate the prosecution’s case see Agbo V The State [2006] NWLR (Pt 977) 545, Ekanem V. Queen [1960] G FSC. 14; Nasamau V The State (1979) 6-9 SC.153.”PER T.O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE IT PREFERS ONE EVIDENCE TO ANOTHER IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION
“It must be evident on record how the court arrived at its conclusion of preferring one piece of evidence to the other see Oyekola V Ajibade [2007] 17 NWLR (Pt 902) 356, Idakwo V Nigerian Army [2004] 2 NWLR (Pt 857) 249; Alake V State (1992) 9 NWLR (PT 265) 260.” PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

CORROBORATION – A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN ONLY BE CORROBORATED BY AN EVIDENCE THAT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH IT
“A piece of evidence that is supposed to corroborate another evidence must not be at logger head with the evidence it wants to confirm. Clearly the retracted confessional statement cannot be corroborated by an evidence which kicks against it”. PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

CORROBORATION – MEANING OF CORROBORATION
Corroboration means “confirming or giving support to” see Iko V State [2001] 14 NWLR (Pt 732) 195.” PER T.O.AWOTOYE, J.C.A

INFERENCE OF GUILT- THE COURT CANNOT INFER THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FROM MERE SUSPICION
“The court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion.” PER SHUAIBU, J.C.A

Statues Referred to
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap R II L.F.N 2004.

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here

Areas of Law:
LAW OF BANKING, CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summary of facts
The Accused/Appellant and Umita Construction & Supply Company Ltd were arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on a two count charge bordering on issuance of dishonored cheques for lack of funds in the account contrary to section 1(1) (b) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap D11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and punishable under section 1(1)(i) of the same Act . At trial, an application was made to tender the petition sent to EFCC and the dud cheques. The defence objected to its admissibility on grounds that the dates on the documents did not correspond with the date stated by the witness in his oral evidence. The trial court after hearing arguments of parties ruled that the documents were relevant and admissible and proceeded to admitting them in evidence as exhibits despite the wrong dates stated in oral evidence hence this appeal.

Held
Appeal Dismissed

Issue for Determination:
Whether the learned trial judge was right to have admitted the document which the witness gave a different date in evidence at the trial?

Rationes:
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE
“The criteria for the admissibility of documents in evidence, are –
(a) whether the document has been pleaded;
(b) whether it is relevant to the issue in dispute; and
(c) whether it is legally admissible. See Okonji Vs. Njokanma (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 250 and FBN VS.JIBO (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 261. It is the law, that a court is entitled to admit and act only on evidence admissible in law – See Sawa Olukade Vs. Alade (1976) LPELR – 257 (SC).” PER A.D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

TENDERING A DOCUMENT IN EVIDENCE – PROCEDURE FOR TENDERING A DOCUMENT IN EVIDENCE
“When a party intends to tender a document in evidence, the witness through whom the document would be tendered, lays a foundation for its admission. He is then shown the document to enable him identify it, before an application is made to tender it. The documents to be relied upon at the trial, are front-loaded and served on the opposing party. This enables him to see and scrutinise the documents that would be relied upon, and their admission in evidence is normally a formality, unlessthere are other factors that would stand on the way of their admission in evidence”. PER A.D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

TECHNICALITIES – DUTY OF COURTS TO AVOID THE SHACKLES OF TECHNICALITY WHICH WOULD RENDER THEM SLAVES TO A PROCEDURE AND DEFEAT JUSTICE
“The objection to the admissibility of the documents, is nothing but mere legalism, a roving into intricacies in pursuit of technical justice. This is not a posture that would be met with any sympathy in the Court of Appeal. Our attitude is that concern for justice, must be the overriding factor and for that reason, all courts of law should avoid the shackles of technicality which would render them slaves to a procedure which will serve no useful purpose, but which would certainly, defeat justice. See Amaka Vs. State (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 11 and Olujimi Vs.Assembly (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 464.” PER A.D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE- THE DETERMINING FACTOR FOR ADMISSIBILITY IS RELEVANCE
“The documents sought to be tendered were relevant and admissible. Relevance is the soul of admissibility. At best the objection only went to the weight to be attached to the documents and not their admissibility. At worse the objection was an adventure in technicality which now belongs to the museum of legal history.”PER J.E. EKANEM, J.C.A

Statue Referred to:
Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap D11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004

To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here