OKON BASSEY EBE VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
May 30, 2025MADAM ABUSATU AGBOGUNLERI V JOHN DEPO & 3 ORS
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (SC) 53926
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 25, 2008
Suit Number: SC. 288/2007
CORAM
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI,, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR, G.C.O.N2. SENATOR BEN OBI3. ACTION CONGRESS (AC. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is a consolidated appeal. Two interlocutory appeals are consolidated. One is against the Ruling of the Court of Appeal refusing leave to the petitioners/appellants to file interrogatories against the 5th respondent, and seek further and better particulars against the 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively. The other is against the Ruling of the Court of Appeal granting extension of time to the 4th to 808th respondents to file 213 additional witnesses’ statements on oath.
HELD
First appeal allowed in part. The Supreme Court granted the leave to administer interrogatories on 5th respondent and refused the leave for further and better particulars. Second appeal dismissed the court held that the lower court acted rightly in granting the 4th – 808th respondents have to call additional witnesses. ?
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners/Appellants’ motion for leave to administer interrogatories on 5th respondent and further and better particulars from 1st and 2nd respondents were rightly refused by the lower court in the light of the decision of this court cited but ignored in the Ruling (Appeal No. 1).2. Whether the lower court acted without jurisdiction when it granted 4th-808th respondents leave to call additional witnesses notwithstanding that no such prayer was canvassed by the 4th-808th respondents before their Lordships; and the time mandatorily prescribed for such an application was not sought. (Appeal No. 2)?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OPPRESSIVE INTERROGATORIES
A court of law will not allow interrogatories which are oppressive. Oppressive interrogatories are interrogatories which put the party interrogated in an undue burden which is out of all proportion to the benefit to be gained by the interrogating party. Per Niki Tobi, JSC
INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatories are never at large and they must have a nexus with the matter or matters in issue. They must be related to the matter or matters in issue. This does not mean that the interrogatories are strictly confined to the facts directly in issue, but extend to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue. Per Niki Tobi, JSC
ATTITUDE OF COURT TOWARDS BLUNDERS MADE IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS
It is the object of the court to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the litigation process, particularly when the mistakes are really mistakes. It is a known fact that blunders must take place in the litigation process and because blunders are inevitable, it is not fair, in appropriate cases, to make a party in the blunder to incur the wrath of the law at the expense of hearing the merits of the case. Per Niki Tobi, JSC
PURPOSE OF FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS
The purpose of further and better particulars is not to amend or rewrite the pleadings. The purpose is to explain them so that they can sound more exact and precise. Where a party has any doubt about any matter pleaded, he can ask for further and better particulars. Per Niki Tobi, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Famuyide v. Irvinq and Co. Ltd. (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 256) 639.2. Marriot v. Chamberlain (1886) 17 QBD 154 at 163.3. Balir v. Haycock Caddie Co. (1917) 34 TLR 39.4. Plymouth Mutual Corporative Society v. Traders Publishing Association (1967) 1 KB 403 at 416;5. Hennessy v. Wright (No.2) (1888) 24 QBD 447.6. Heaton v. Goldney (1910) 1 KB 653.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
