Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER [2018]SC.401/2016

APPEAL NO: SC.401/2016

AREAS OF LAW:

APPEAL, COMPANY LAW, COURT, LAW OF CONTRACT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

In satisfaction of the liabilities arising out of bank/customer relationship between the Appellant and Respondent, parties agreed that the sum of ₦3.5 Billion be paid as full and final liquidation of the indebtedness. Upon completion of the payment in January, 2014, the Respondent communicated to the Appellant that it was still indebted to it, hence, the Appellant commenced Dispute resolution Proceedings before the Bankers’ Committee comprising, the CBN and a representation from both parties.  The Committee reached a decision in favour of the Appellant to the effect that the agreement to pay the sum ₦3.5 Billion in full and final liquidation of the Appellant was valid, hence it discharged those obligations. Following the Respondent’s insistence that the Appellant was still indebted to it and the Respondent’s refusal to abide by the Bankers Committee’s decision and the refusal to release all securities, led to the commencement of the suit No. FHC/L/1219/2015 at the trial court for the determination that the Appellant was no longer indebted to the Respondent among other prayers.  The Respondent contended that the Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute between it and the Appellant and that it is only the State High Court that could adjudicate in the dispute being a matter of simple contract. Whilst these rulings were pending, the Respondent yet commenced a winding up proceeding at the Federal High Court on the same facts as those on which issues had been joined in Suit No. FHC/L/1219/2015. The Appellant filed an application for the discharge of the Exparte order granted but the court failed to discharge same. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Exparte orders were discharged and the court struck out some grounds of appeal before it, on the basis that leave to appeal was required in respect of the said ground. It is against that portion of the judgment that the Appellant has presented this appeal contending that the lower court failed in its adjudicatory duty in not considering all the issues raised by it.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

HELD:

Appeal Allowed 

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

• Whether the lower court was not in grave error and also acted in breach of appellant’s right to fair hearing, when it refused to consider and pronounce on diverse fundamental issues validly raised before it by the appellant.

RATIONES:

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON AN ISSUE WHERE SAME IS SUBSUMED BY ANOTHER ISSUE

“The learned respondent’s counsel however rightly argued that where an issue is subsumed by another issue, it is no longer necessary to make any pronouncement on the subsumed issue. See Adebayo vs AG Ogun State (2008)2-3 SC (pt. II) 50; AI.I.B. Ltd vs IDS Ltd & 20rs (292)5 SC (pt.II) 112.” PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER THE COURT CAN WITHHOLD ITS PRONOUNCEMENT ON ISSUES RAISED BY PARTIES

“Similarly, added the learned respondent’s counsel, where issues are not validly raised, the court is not bound to make any’ pronouncement on it. He also as a concession of the complaint by the appellant’s counsel, admitted or agreed that the lower court deliberately withheld its pronouncement on the issues raised and he argued, that the lower court was faultless in withholding its pronouncement, as some of the issues complained of are mere academic issues which were not the crux or subject matter of the appeal. See Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd Vs Femi (1993)5 NWLR (pt.295)612; Adelaja v Alade(1999)4 SC 81. PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – DUTY ON A COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT

“It is trite law, that a court of law should always make pronouncement on or must determine all the issues raised before it by parties. See 7 Up Bottling Company vs Abiola Sons Bottling Company Ltd (2001)6 SC 73”. PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DUTY ON COURTS TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES ARTICULATED BEFORE THEM

“The law is well settled that it is the duty of a court either of first instance or appellate jurisdiction to  consider all the issues joined and argued by the parties before the court and where it failed to do so, valid reasons must be advanced for the neglect. Particularly, for penultimate courts which decisions are subject to appeal to either the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, there is need for them to pronounce on all issues articulated before them so that the Appellate Court may have the opportunity of being seized of the facts and to assess the decisions on each such issues in order to avoid situations where the ultimate court may have to remit a case to the lower court for hearing. It is only the Apex Court that can determine a case on a single issue which terminates the proceedings or appeal. See Ebba v. Ogodo & anor (1984) 1 SCNLR 372, Ojogbue v. Nnubia (1972) 1 ALL NLR (pt2) 226 at 232, Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Co. Ltd v. Soleh Boneh Nig. Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR (pt. 251) 322.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DUTY OF COURTS TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES BEFORE THEM

“It is now well-settled that, except in clearest of terms it is the duty of all lower Courts to consider all, issues placed before them, A. G. Leventis Plc v Akpu (2007) LPELR – 5 (SC); Owodunni v Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ and Ors [2006] 6 SC (pt. II) 60; [2006] 6 SCNJ (pt. 299) 426,422; Ikpeazu v Otti and Ors (2016) LPELR -40055 (SC) 19; A – C; Katto v CBN[1991] 9 NWLR (pt. 240) 126, 149; Okonji v Njokanma [199.1] 7 NWLR (pt. 202) 131,150; Chukwu v Sonen Bonen[2000] 2 SCNJ 18, 38; Brawal Shipping (Nig) Ltd v. F.I. Onwadike Co. Ltd[2000] 6 SCNJ 508, 522; Ojogbue v Nnubia[1972] 6 SC 227; Yakassai v. Incar Motors Ltd. [1975] 5 SC 107; Citec International Estate Limited & Ors v. Josiah Oluwole Francis & Ors (2014) LPELR – 22314 (SC); C. N. Okpala and Sons Ltd v Nigerian Breweries Plc{2017) LPELR – 43826 (SC) 17; A-F. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PRONOUNCE ON FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES CANVASSED BY PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT

“There is every necessity for a tribunal to make findings and pronounce on material and fundamental issues canvassed before it by the parties because failure to do so may result in a miscarriage of justice. See page 1257 of vol.iii of the record. See also the case of Usman v Umaru (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.254) 377 at 398-399 paras. F-A where this Court held thus:

“It is now settled that under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court below as an intermediate Court of Appeal between the court below it and this court as final appellate court, is bound by its own decisions…………..  “

• PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – INSTANCE WHEN A COURT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT

“It is now a settled matter that once issues are presented before a court it has to attend to each and every one of them save for when any aspect is subsumed in the already considered issue that it can be taken as settled. In this I call in aid the following dicta. NTA v Babatope(1996) 4 NWLR ( Pt.440) 75 at 89, Pats – Acholonu JCA (as he then was) held that:-

“in considering the case put forward by the parties, I note with regret that the learned trial judge did not seem to have applied his mind analytically to the two sides of the case, i.e., the address of both counsel, it does not matter what his conclusions would have been, but a judgment which when viewed from all parameters, seems to be based pointedly on the case or submission of one party, does not quite reflect the orthodox method of adjudication. Even if the other parties is talking legal nonsense, he should make a finding of that nonsense.”

• PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

STATUTE REFERRED TO:

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT