A. O. EGHOBAMIEN V. FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK OF NIGERIA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

A. O. EGHOBAMIEN V. FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK OF NIGERIA

OLATUNBOSUN ISHIAQ V SERGEANT FREDRICK EHITOR & ORS
June 18, 2025
OSSAI EMEDO V. THE STATE
June 18, 2025
OLATUNBOSUN ISHIAQ V SERGEANT FREDRICK EHITOR & ORS
June 18, 2025
OSSAI EMEDO V. THE STATE
June 18, 2025
Show all

A. O. EGHOBAMIEN V. FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK OF NIGERIA

Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 11932

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jul 12, 2002

Suit Number: SC.119/1997

CORAM



PARTIES


A. O. EGHOBAMIEN APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

his is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division. In a unaninious decision the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of Edokpayi  J. of Edo High Court which was delivered in favour of the Plaintiff, Mr. A. O. Eghobamien, against the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria.


HELD


Appeal dismissed.


ISSUES


“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in pronouncing on the issue not canvassed before it.2. Whether the amount of N5,000 awarded for detinue is adequate.3.  Whether in  the circumstances the cost N2,000.00 awarded against the appellant by the appellate court was not excessive.4. Whether the action was based on breach of contract or detinue.5. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before the lower courts, whether the  appellant is not  entitled to judgement.”?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE


A trial is a judicial exaimination of evidence according to the law of the land given before the court after hearing parties and their witnesses. A trial must be conducted by the judge himself and at the end of the heaving he will write a judgment which is the authentic decision based on the evidence he received and recorded. It is a mistrial for one judge to receive evidence and another to write judgment on it. Per UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JSC


ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS WHETHER PARTIES CAN WAIVE THE CONDITION PRECEDENT THERETO.


The provisions of section 34(1) of the Evidence Act is mandatory and cannot be waived. If consent is given to admit evidence which is contrary to the provisions of a statute (e.g.S.34(1) of the Evidence Act) the courts must ignore it because it is a case of giving consent to an illegality. Per UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JSC


CASES CITED


Joseph Nahman v. J. A. Odutola (1953) 14 WACA 381Kale v. Coker (1982) 12 S.C. 252.Menakaya v. Menakaya (2001) 16 NWLR (Part 738) 203 at 236 and 263; (2001) 12 SCM 107Francis Shanu and Anor. v. Afribank Nigeria PLC, delivered on 21st June, 2002, [reported (2002) 10 SCM?


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.