ATIPIOKO EKPAN VS. AGUNU UYO
July 21, 2025IRENUMA ODIASE & ORS VS VINCENT AGHO & ANOR
July 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1986) Legalpedia (SC) 77571
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 2, 1986
Suit Number: SC. 78/1985
CORAM
OBASEKI
PARTIES
CHIEF S.B. BAKARE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this interlocutory appeal, the dispute was as to which of the parties, in the consolidated suit, would begin in the trial of the suit. The Respondents contended, in support of the Ruling of the trial Judge, that on the state of the pleadings, the onus to being was on the Plaintiff/Appellant. The plaintiff, a customer of the bank was indebted to the Bank, upon accommodations granted to him by the Bank. A dispute arose as to what the total sum amounted to. The Bank took its own summons against the plaintiff and claimed for the sum of N4,636,349.41 (Four million six hundred and thirty six thousand three hundred and forty nine naira forty one Kobo) being money payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs for money lent by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants and for money paid by the Plaintiffs for the Defendants as Bankers to the Plaintiffs. Judgment was held in favor of the defendant. It was from this Ruling that the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the Ruling of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law in holding that “it is not in dispute that the party to begin is determined by the court at its discretion having regard to the material issues disclosed in the pleadings.
The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that “Before the judge in the court below, learned counsel for the appellant did not say he was no longer pursuing reliefs 3 and 4. It cannot therefore be true to say the only material issues was the quantum of debt owed the respondent by the appellant. In this court Chief Williams has said for the first time that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Bucknor-Maclean vs. InlaksLimited. (1980) 8-11 S.C. 1 he could no longer pursue reliefs numbers 3 and 4.
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were in error in failing to uphold the argument of the Appellant to the effect that having regard to the state of the pleadings and the law, it was the Respondent and not the Appellant who should have been directed to begin.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISMISSAL OF CLAIM BASED ON POSSIBILITY TO SUCCEED WITHOUT PROPER ADJUDICATION OR WITHDRAWAL
“A Judge has no legal right to strike out or dismiss any claim on the basis that the claim could not possibly succeed without proper adjudication or withdrawal. It is the inherent right of every person in this country to seek any remedy or relief available in our courts for the relief of any injury done to or infraction of his civil rights and obligations.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
DUTY OF JUDGE TO CONSIDER ONLY MATTERS BEFORE IT
“The trial Judge must tread warily and cautiously in the uncharted course to a correct judgment. He must consider only the matters before him in resolving any issue at any particular point of time. He has a right to be wrong and a right to be right. A party has a right to be satisfied and a right to be dissatisfied with his judgment.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
