CORAM
FRANCIS FEDODO TABAI
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODO TABAI
PARTIES
CHARLES ODEDO APPELLANTS
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Applicant/Appellant in this case was not a party to the proceedings before the Federal High Court, but brought an application seeking leave to be joined as a party interested in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/737/2014 between the 5th Respondent herein as Appellant and the 1st – 4th Respondents as the Respondents. When the motion for joiner came up for hearing before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, the Court acting pursuant to section 5(a) of the Court of Appeal Practice Directions 2013, struck out the motion suo motu without giving the Applicant/Appellant a hearing. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Applicant/Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it struck out the Appellant’s Application before the same was argued and whether in the circumstances the appellant was given a fair hearing or any hearing at all?
2. Whether the court below was right in striking out the Appellant’s application based on section 5(a) of the court of Appeal practice Direction 2013?
3. Whether the Appellant is not entitled to judgment on the merit of the application?
4. Whether in the circumstances of this appeal, this is not a proper case in which the Supreme Court should exercise its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to hear this application on its merit?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – DUTY OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
“Legal practitioners have a responsibility to keep abreast of the pronouncements of the court and advise their clients accordingly. It is wrong to ignore decisions of this court and seek to perpetuate a position that has already been pronounced upon. This is one of the causes of congestion in our courts and must be discouraged. See the dictum of Nweze, JSC in his concurring judgment in the recent case of Ifeanyi Chiyenum Blessing Vs F.R.N. (unreported) in SC.503/2012 delivered on 15/5/2015.”PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
COURT – POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT.
“In the case of Yusufu V. Obasanjo 2003 16 NWLR Pt 847 Page 554 at 585-586 for instance, Niki Tobi, JSC made the following pronouncement on the power of this court under section 22 of the Act and said:-
“One consideration for the invocation of section 22 is that the matter must have been raised in the lower court and that court did not or failed to take the appropriate decision. Another consideration is that there are enough materials before this court to enable it take a decision one way or the other, for example the motion on notice and all the affidavits in support, Exhibits to the affidavits including judgment of the High Court ………. The record of appeal in my view contains all the relevant materials for this court to consider and make order or orders one way or the other in respect of the amendments sought by the appellants. I therefore resort to the record of appeal to make the necessary orders ……….”
See also the decided cases of: -Ediagbonya V. Dumez (Nig) Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt 31) 753; Omisade V. Akande (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.55) 158; Igboho Irepo Local Government Council and Community V. The Boundary Settlement Commissioner (1988) 1NWLR (Pt.69) 189; Adeyemi V. Y.R.S. Ike – Oluwa and Sons
Limited (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt.309) 27.”PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
ACADEMIC CLAIM – DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC CLAIM
“Tobi JSC in defining academic claim had this to say in the case Plateau State V. Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) NWLR (Pt 967) 346 at 419:-
“A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound, and no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour……” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS – THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RESPECT OF A MATTER IS FINAL AND BINDING ON ALL OTHER COURTS.
“The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. By virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 its decisions are final. In other words, a decision of the apex court settles the position of the law in respect of a particular issue and becomes a binding precedent for all other courts of record in Nigeria.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU – IT IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO RAISE AN ISSUE SUO MOTU FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
“The law is well settled that it is within the competence and province of a court to raise a point suo motu for purpose of serving the interest or course of justice. However, and that notwithstanding, it is also incumbent on the court to invite parties, particularly the party that may be adversely affected as a result of the point raised suo motu, to address it on such a point before basing its decision thereupon. This is a matter of duty and a fulfillment of the constitutional requirement of fair hearing the breach of which is very fundamental. No point raised in this circumstance i.e. suo motu can ever be trivialized. See Prov. Liquidator, Tapp Ind. V TAPP Ind (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt 393) 9; see also Olusanya V. Olusanya (1983) 1 SCNLR 134, (1983) 14 NSCC 97 at P2.”PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COURT – MOTIONS FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
“It is pertinent to restate that in our judicial process and procedure, motions are a regular resort. Therefore, generally, our legal jurisprudence recognizes that applications are an integral part of substantive suits. The jurist Niki Tobi JSC for instance had this to say in the case of CCB (Nig)Plc V. Ozobu (1998) 3 NWLR page 290 at p.312
“……….. Hardly are cases heard and disposed of without the filing of motion seeking for one type of relief or the other …… the truth is that they form an inevitable part of our judicial system…..” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS – THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING POSTULATES THAT ALL APPLICATIONS BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT MUST BE HEARD.
“The general principle of law is trite and well established that all applications properly brought before a court must be heard. The reasoning behind this principle is well founded because it is only equitable that a party to a cause or matter should be entitled and ought to be given the opportunity to be heard on his application before a decision can be given either in his favour or against him. This re-iterates and affirms the principle of fair hearing as enshrined in our constitution which demands and establishes that all parties must be heard for proper determination of their case. Any breach of the principle will naturally nullify the proceedings, as it has been held in the case of Enebeli V. C.B.N (2006) 9 NWLR (pt.984) 69 at 78.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
DOCTRINE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM.
“The doctrine of audi alteram partem is engraved firmly in our legal system. The consequential effect of non-compliance is to abandon the principle of natural justice which is rooted in the concept of the Rule of Law. See Harrods Limited V. Anifalaje & Anor. (1985) 5 NWLR (143) 603.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013Court of Appeal Rules 2011
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)