CHIEF CLEMENT O. OKAFOR V ANTHONY ABUMOFUANI
April 24, 2025MR. OLUMIDE BRAITHWAITE V ALHAJI BASHIR DALHATU
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 09701
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 22, 2016
Suit Number: SC.228/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
BODE THOMAS APPELLANTS
FJSC RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent/Applicant by motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 2 rule 28(1) of the Supreme Court Rules sought an order striking out Grounds 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal for being incompetent in that the said Grounds of appeal are of mixed law and facts or of facts alone for which the prior leave of the court below or this court ought to have been sought and obtained and also an order striking out issues 1, 3, and 4 being issues formulated and argued based on the said Grounds of Appeal for being incompetent.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the provision of Order 2 rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended) applies to any preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal whether in whole or in part?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DOCTRINE OF STARE-DECISIS- OPERATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
“The doctrine of stare-decisis or precedent which provides for this principle operates where the issue determined by the court in an earlier case is the same or similar to the issue the court is subsequently approached to determine. Where, therefore, an issue had not been previously raised at and determined by the court, a decision arrived by the court cannot rule a subsequent one on totally different fact(s) and or law(s) from those in the earlier case. See Clement V. Iwuanyanwu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 107) 39”
COURTS – COURTS DO NOT WORK IN VAIN
Courts do not work in vain. See Ogigie V. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt 524) 179 and Odua Invest Ltd V. Talabi (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt 523)1.”
APPLICATION UNDER A WRONG RULE OF COURT- WHETHER A PARTY CAN BE DENIED REMEDY SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS WRONGLY STATED THE RULE OF COURT UNDER WHICH THE RELIEF IS SOUGHT.
“The requirement that parties state the rules of court by virtue of which they assert a relief is technical and merely prescribes procedural steps for the guidance of the parties and the court. Our essence as a court is to do substantial justice. Once a remedy is provided for by any written law and it is properly claimed by a party, the remedy cannot be denied the party simply because he has wrongly stated the rule of court under which the relief is sought See Folabi V. Falobi (1976) 1 NMLR 169 and Edewor V. Uwegba (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt 50) 313.”
APPLICATION UNDER A WRONG RULE OF COURT- DUTY OF COURT TO GRANT AN APPLICATION BROUGHT UNDER A WRONG RULE OF COURT OR STATUTE PROVIDED THERE IS LEGAL BASIS FOR IT.
“However, that notwithstanding this court is replete with multiplicity of decided authorities to the effect that a court is entitled to grant an application brought under a wrong rule of court or statute provided there is legal basis for it. See Maja vs Samouris (2002) 9 NSCQR 546 at 567. In fact, this court had this to say in Uchendu vs Ogboni(1999) 5NWLR (pt.G03) 337 at 351. “It is trite that a particular rule of court or law under which a motion is brought is generally stated in the motion paper but failure to do this will not make the motion incompetent nor the order upon which the motion is granted invalid, so long as there exists a rule of law which can back up the motion. “
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended)
2. Supreme Court Rules 1999
