CORAM
PARTIES
1. HOUSE OWNERS/RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF SHELL HOUSING ESTATE2. MR. JULIUS ODENIYI3. MR. PETER F. YESUFU APPELLANTS
MRS. RUTH EZE UDENSI RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts of the case are that the Applicant/Respondent commenced an action by way of originating application under the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Rules against the Appellants/Respondents at the High Court of Lagos State, alleging that the Appellants had breached and had threatened to breach her fundamental rights by the failure to account for the lawful use of levies and dues being collected from her by the 1st Appellant and administered or expended by the Executive led by the 2nd – 3rd Appellants culminating in the denial of her right of ingress and egress into the Estate wherein her two properties are situate. On the other hand, the Appellant denied any breach of the Respondent’s rights as provided in Sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and relied on Section 45(1) of the said Constitution providing for lawful limitations to the provisions of Section 40 of the said Constitution in that the Respondent who had voluntarily elected to be a member of the 1st Appellant’s Association was bound by the internal rules and regulations of the said Association. The trial court heard the application and in its judgment granted part of the reliefs as claimed by the Applicant/Respondent while refusing the reliefs for damages. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Respondent/Appellant filed a notice of appeal on the grounds that the trial court did not consider all the issues and submissions raised before arriving at its decision, and urged the court to strike out and/or dismiss the suit for being incompetent. The Respondent though present in court did not oppose the appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Respondent’s suit was competent? Whether the Court below was right when it found partly in favour of the Respondent and thereby granting some of the reliefs claimed by the Respondent against the Appellants?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BRIEF OF ARGUMENT – EFFECT OF A FAILURE OF A RESPONDENT TO FILE ITS BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
“In law therefore, the failure of the Respondent to file her Respondent’s brief and thereby not making any counter submissions to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellants simply amounted to a concession by the Respondent that the appeal has merit and should therefore, be allowed by this Court. This is so because in law where one party is duly served with the arguments of the other party and he fails or neglects or refuses to respond to the said arguments as proffered by the other party, it would be taken that he has conceded to the arguments of the other party. See Dr. Arthur Nwankwo & Ors V. Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua & Ors (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518, where the Supreme Court per Onnoghen JSC., (as he then was now Former CJN) had held inter alia thus:
“It is settled law that where an opponent fails or neglects to counter any argument or issue validly raised in the brief of argument or during oral presentation, the issue is not so contested and is deemed conceded by the defaulting party”
See also Ahmed V. Ahmed (2013) 41 WRN 1; Dairo V. Aderinoye (2013) 50 WRN 111.”
BRIEF OF ARGUMENT – DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER ARGUMENT OF A PARTY ON ITS MERIT EVEN WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO COUNTER THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OTHER PARTY
“However, I am aware that in law where an issue raised by one party is not countered by the other party, it does not automatically follow that such arguments, though conceded, are to be taken hook, line and sinker by the Court. Thus the failure of one party to counter the arguments of the other party alone does not ipso facto without more confer merit on the arguments of the party as the Court is still under a duty to consider the arguments on their own merit. It is only in deference to this position of the law and the overriding need to do substantial justice that I intend to proceed to consider and determine this appeal on the merit. See Adah V. NYSC (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 639. See also Tanko V. UBA Plc. (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 80; Obiuweubi V. CBN (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 80; Stowe V. Benstowe (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 450; Elelu – Habeeb V. AG. Fed. (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423; Agi V. Access Bank Plc (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 121.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – WHAT DENOTES THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT?
“I bear in mind that in law it is the claim of a Claimant or an Applicant as the case maybe, that denotes the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, whenever the issue of whether or not a claim is within the jurisdiction of a Court is raised, it is the claim of the Claimant or Applicant as the case may be as endorsed on the originating processes that must be looked at and critically scrutinized to see whether or not it falls within the jurisdictional limit of the powers of the Court before which it was commenced. In so doing, the defence of the Defendant or Respondent as the case may be, no matter how strong, is really of no moment and thus goes to no issue in the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the claim of the Claimant or Applicant if it is found to be within the ambit of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by law. See Tukur V. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board V. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) 538 @ p. 563.”
COMPETENCE OF COURT – CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE A COURT IS SAID TO BE COMPETENT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A MATTER
“Now, in law when a Court would be said to be competent to hear and determine a cause or matter is no longer an issue for argument as it has been well settled. Thus, for a Court to be competent the following conditions must be fulfilled, namely: a) it is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; b) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and c) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. See also Benin Rubber Producers Ltd V. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 521) 388 @ p. 403; Sunday Eguanwense V. James Amaghizemwen (1939) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 1 @ p. 25; Gbadamosi Lahan V. AG of Western Region (1963) 1 All NLR 226.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION– FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT
“Thus, the issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication because it goes to the foundation and competence of any cause or matter or action before the Court. It is indeed the epicenter of the entire litigation process and thus without it there can be no validity in any proceedings or resultant judgment of the Court. It is thus the law that once an issue of jurisdiction is raised it must be determined first one way or the other by the Court because jurisdiction is radical and sine quo non to adjudication of any matter or action or cause in a Court of law. Thus, without jurisdiction there can be no competence in the Court. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 341. See also Elugbe V. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319 @ p. 334; Ansa V. RTPCN (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 421 @ p. 448; Gaji V. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 @ pp. 599 – 600; Fashogbon V. Adeogun (No. 1) 92007) All FWLR (Pt. 396) 644 @ p. 658; Tukur V. Gongola State Government (No. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Western Steel Works Ltd. V. Iron & Steel Workers Union (1987) 1NWLR (Pt. 49) 284; Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31; Omaghoni V. Nigeria Airways Ltd. (2006) 16 NWLR (pt. 1101) 310; Equity Bank of Nigeria Ltd. V. Halilco Nig Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 980) 568; NDIC V. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANTS OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“My lords, since in law it is the claims or averments or deposition of the Claimants or Applicant, as the case may be, that would be scrutinized by the Court to see whether or not it falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, I have taken a calm look once again at the reliefs claimed by the Respondent together with the copious verification and supporting affidavits as deposed to by her coupled with the above un-appealed findings of facts of the Court below, which in law remains binding on the parties, and it does appear to me that the crux of issue one is, not so much as to the powers of the Court below to entertain and determine matters bordering on or touching on enforcement of fundamental rights but rather, whether the claims of the Respondent, as can be gleaned from the totality of the reliefs claimed by her and the affidavit evidence before the Court below was within the jurisdictional competence of the Court below to be heard and determined under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules? In other words, and simply put, whether the principal claims of the Respondent were for the enforcement of any of her fundamental human rights and thus within the fundamental rights enforcement jurisdiction of the Court below?”
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT -NATURE OF CLAIM THAT CAN BE DETERMINED UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT RULES
“It is settled law that where the principal claim is not for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Chapter IV of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), then such a claim cannot be proceeded with under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules. Tukur V. Govt of Taraba State (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 510) 549 @ pp. 576 – 577. See also Emeka V. Okoroafor & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41738 (SC); Nwokoleme V. Ajaero & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40073 (CA); Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur V. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Mrs. Comfort Alagba Kolo V. Nigeria Police Force & Ors (2018) LPELR – 43635 (CA); Dr. Okoroma & Anor V. Chief Christian Uba & Ors (1998) LPELR – 6405 (CA).
In Nwokoleme V. Ajaero & Ors (2016) LPELR-40073 (CA), this Court had put it succinctly and concisely inter alia thus:
“Of course, it is clear that in fundamental rights enforcement matter, the complaint must centre on fundamental rights breach (es) as per Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution, such that the main grievance or complaint is the breach of fundamental rights and the breach is not brought as ancillary claim(s)”
RELIEFS – NATURE OF RELIEFS SOUGHT IN A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT RULES
“It follows therefore, in a suit brought under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules the reliefs sought must centre on and be focused principally on the fundamental rights of the Applicant as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to be countenanced by the Court. They must be the main claim and not ancillary as otherwise in law such a suit is incompetent and the Court must decline jurisdiction. This is so even where the action is brought under the guise or cloak of fundamental human rights since it is the bourdon duty of the Court to examine the reliefs sought, the grounds and the facts relied upon to determine if the proceeding is actually one for the enforcement of any of the fundamental human rights as enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). This was the view expressed and the position of the law as pronounced upon by the apex Court in the case of WAEC V. Adeyanju (2008) LPELR-3467 (SC), inter alia thus:
“I am of the view that the proper approach is to examine the reliefs sought by the Respondent as Applicant before the trial Court as a party seeking to enforce her fundamental right, the grounds for seeking the reliefs and the facts relied upon to support the reliefs being sought. If the reliefs sought, the grounds upon which the reliefs were sought together with the facts relied upon in support of such reliefs have disclosed that breach of fundamental right is the main plank upon which the reliefs are being sought, then redress may be sought by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. However, where the alleged breach of fundamental right is incidental or ancillary to the main complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules”
The above position of the law had earlier in 1997 been echoed by the apex Court in the case of Tukur V. Govt of Taraba State (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 510) 549 @ pp. 576 – 577, wherein Ogundare, JSC had opined inter alia thus:
“The primary complaint of the Appellant in the whole case was his deposition as the Emir of Muri, the alleged breaches of his fundamental rights to fair hearing, liberty and freedom of movement were merely accessory to his primary complaint .The crux of the complaint in the trial Court however is as to whether the Plaintiff was lawfully deposed as the Emir of Muri, but was cloaked under fundamental right. Since the main procedural approach at the trial Court was incompetent, no relief could flow from it”.
See also Egbuonu V. Borno Radio and Television Corp. (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29; Sea Trucks Nig. Ltd V. Anigboro (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 696) 159; Jack V. University of Agriculture (2004) 1 SC (Reprint) (Pt. 11) 100.”
ACADEMIC/HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES- ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TO ACADEMIC/HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES
“In law once it is found that a suit is incompetent that is the end of the matter as both the Court below and this Court would lack the jurisdictional competence to hear and determine the Respondent’s suit on the merit and since Courts of law do not act in vain, there is in my view no further need or duty on this Court to proceed to consider issue two in this appeal relating to the merit or otherwise of the substantive appeal. To do so at this stage would in my view amount to a mere academic exercise and a waste of the scarce and very precious judicial time of this Court on what is already staring us in our faces as a nullity. In Charles Oke & Anor V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the full Court of the Supreme Court per Muhammad JSC., had this to say on this issue:
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the Courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose”
See also Oke V. Mimiko (No. 1) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 225 @ pp. 254 – 255; Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo Rivers Basin Development Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 @ p 1497.”
BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – STATUS OF AN ISSUE BOTHERING ON A BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“The fulcrum of issue his issue one by the learned counsel for the Appellants, though in my view appears to be only but peripheral in this appeal, is the vexed issue of when in law can the proceedings and or judgment of a Court be said to be in breach of the right to fair hearing as constitutionally guaranteed to the citizens of this Country in the determination of their civil rights and obligations? In law, so grave is this issue that the effect of such a breach is that it invariably renders such a judgment a nullity. See Ekpenetu V. Ofegobi (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 276; Amadi V. INEC ( 2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595; Ovunwo & Anor. V. Woko & Ors (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522; Pan African Incorporation & Ors. V. Shoreline Lifeboat Ltd & Anor 92010) All FWLR (Pt. 524) 56; Action Congress of Nigeria V. Sule Lamido & Ors (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1303) 560 @ p. 593; Judicila Service Commission of Cross River State & Anor V. Dr (Mrs) Asari Young (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 1; Newswatch Communications Limited V. Alhaji Ibrahim Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144; Ofapo V. Sonmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587; Wilson V. AG of Bendel State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 572. See also A. U. Amadi V. Thomas Aplin & Co Ltd (1972) All NLR 413; Mohammed Oladapo Ojengbede V. M.O. Esan & Anor (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 771.”
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“My lords, it is now settled law that a Court must consider and pronounce on all issues arising and properly submitted before it for determination by the contending parties. Generally or should I say usually issues for determination are formulated by the parties and or the Court. Thus a Court is at liberty, and possesses the jurisdiction, to modify or reject all or any of the issues formulated by the parties, and frame its own issues or reframe the issues formulated by the parties, if in its view, such issues will not lead to a proper determination of the case. It is thus no longer in doubt that a Court is enjoined to pronounce, as a general rule, on all issues properly arising and placed before it for determination in order to arrive at the justice of the case and to afford the parties their right to have their issues submitted to the Court to be fairly considered and determined according to law. However, to every general rule there are exceptions and thus where the issue is subsumed in another issue or is found to be irrelevant or inapt or merely obfuscating the real issues for determination, it shall not be necessary for the Court to make separate pronouncement on either each of such subsumed issues or on irrelevant and inapt issues. See Sha (Jnr) V. Kwan (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 670) 685 @ pp. 691 – 692. See also Ogba V. Onwuzu (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 331; Spring Bank Plc V. Dokkin Ventures Nigeria Limited (2012) LPELR – 7983(CA); Uzuada & Ors V. Ebigah (2009) 8 – 9 NMLR 409 @ p. 422; Akpan V. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 218) 431; Brawal Shipping Ltd. V. Onwudikoko (2000) 6 SCNJ 508 @ p. 522; Orji V. PDP (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1161) 310 @ p. 408; Karibo V. Grend (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.230) 426 @ p. 441; Ososana V Ajayi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 527 @ p. 549; Okonkwo V. Udo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 579) 16 @ p. 20.”
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER A DELIBRATE FAILURE BY A COURT TO CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT ISSUES AMOUNTS TO A BREACH OF THE RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING OF A PARTY
“It is thus now firmly settled in law that a deliberate failure by a Court to consider all pertinent and relevant issues arising from and submitted by a party would readily and justifiably be characterized as amounting to a failure to perform its statutory duty and a breach of the right to fair hearing of the party. See AG Federation V. Nse (2O16) LPELR- 40518 (CA). See also Adebayo V. AG of Ogun State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 201; Dawodu V. National Population Commission (2000) 6 WRN 116 @ p. 118; Oyadiran V. Amoo (1970) 1 ANLR 313 @ p. 317; Ojogbue V. Nnubia (1972) 6 SC 227; Atanda V. Ajani (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511 @ p. 539; Okonji V. Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 @ pp. 150 – 152; Katto V. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126 @ p. 49; Ovunwo V. Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522 @ pp. 546 – 547.”
DECISION OF COURT – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THE MANNER A TRIAL COURT ARRIVES AT HIS DECISION
“In law even if the way and manner a trial Court considers and arrives at its decision may not be appealing or appeasing to an Appellant or even to an appellate Court called upon to review the decision of the trial Court, yet it is of no serious moment and thus ceases to be of any importance once the decision reached by the trial Court is correct in conformity with laid down principles, the facts and the dictates of justice of the case. See Eyo V. Inyang (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 715) 1, where it was reiterated inter alia thus:
“A trial court is entitled to follow its own method of considering or weighing the totality of the evidence before it provided the final decision arrived at by whatever method conform with principles laid down in the case and the justice of the case”
See also Jekpe V. Alokwe (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 252, where Ogwuegbu JSC., had opined inter alia thus:
“It must be emphasized that there is no set style which must be followed by trial Courts when writing judgments. Judges must no doubt differ in the procedure and style, which they adopt in their consideration of the entire evidence. It is not very material whether the Judge starts with the consideration of the defendant’s case before that of the plaintiff and vice versa. What is important is that he should first of all put the whole evidence led by the parties on that imaginary scale. He will put the evidence adduce by the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them together. He will then see which is heavier by the quality or probative value of the testimony as against the quality or number of the witnesses. After this, the judge applies the law, if any, before he comes to his final conclusion based on the accepted evidence. “
WRITING A GOOD JUDGMENT – WHETHER THERE ARE SPECIFIC FORMAT IN WRITING A GOOD JUDGMENT
“My lords, it would thus be safe to opine that in law there is no specific format for Judges to follow in writing their Judgments and Rulings as they are each entitled to adopt their individual style in writing their Judgments and Rulings so long as such a judgment or ruling contains the issues or questions to be decided in the case; the essential facts of the case of each party and the evidence led in support; the resolution of the issues of fact and law raised in the case; the conclusion or general inference drawn from facts and law as resolved; and the verdict and orders made by the Court, it is a good judgment. Some judges write in flowery languages while others write in simple languages but in all, notwithstanding the style employed, once the constituents of a good judgment are manifest the judge has discharged his duty of writing a good judgment.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – NATURE OF THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“The right to fair hearing of the citizen is not breached merely because he losses a case in Court and thus would be seen to have been observed only when the citizen wins his case against the other party. That is certainly not the protection afforded by the right to fair hearing. In my view winning or losing a case is dependent on the facts and evidence led before the Court. At any rate, in law the issue of fair hearing is a two – way traffic as well as a two – edged sword as both parties are equally entitled to the protection of the law affording them their guaranteed right to fair hearing. See Newswatch Communication Limited V. Attah (supra) @ p. 151.”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – NATURE OF THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER, APPRAISE, REVIEW AND EVALUATE ALL RELEVANT AND ADMITTED EVIDENCE
“Now, the duty of a trial Court to consider, appraise, review and evaluate all relevant and admitted evidence, whether oral or depositions and or documentary, placed before it before arriving at its findings and decision is a paramount as well as a sacrosanct one which cannot under any guise be abandoned or jettison by a trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court fails in this duty then it fails it its entire duty of impartial adjudication between the contending parties before it and the appellate if so moved is under a bourdon duty to intervene to evaluate the evidence as in the record and make relevant findings and reach appropriate decisions as borne out by the evidence in the interest of justice to the parties. See Tangale Traditional Council V. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 742) 330 @ pp. 335 – 336, where it was succinctly opined inter alia thus:
“It is trite that documents placed before a Court of law are for the purposes of examination and evaluation and it is the duty of the Judge to ensure that such documents are considered in the interest of justice, for such documents are not tendered just for the fun of it. Documentary evidence must also be evaluated and in the course of evaluation, a Judge is expected to closely examine the documents.”
Also in Olufosoye V. Olufemi (1989) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 29, Oputa, JSC had opined inter alia thus:
“There is a duty on a trial Court to receive all available evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the context of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence”.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT DOES EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ENTAILS?
“Thus, it is now elementary that evaluation of evidence would entail and demand that the evidence proffered by the parties are assessed, appraised and weighed impartially on the imaginary scale of justice by the Court so as to give probative value or quality to it and there must be on record, and very importantly too, how the Court arrived at its choice of preference of one piece of evidence to the other. It cannot just be merely a product of the whims and caprices of the judge. No! He must show on record his reason for so doing. See Alake V. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260. See also Dantiye & Anor V. Kanya & Ors (2008) LPELR – 40094 (CA); Afemai Microfinance Bank Ltd V. Seacos Nig. Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22583 (CA).”
PERVERSE DECISION – MEANING OF A PERVERSE DECISION
“In law, when it is said that a decision is perverse it means it is persistent in error, different from what is reasonable or required and against the weight of evidence. Thus, a decision may be perverse where the trial Court took into account extraneous matters not to be taken into account or where the Court shuts its eyes to the obvious or where the conclusion reached does not flow from the established. It is also true that a finding of facts which is merely speculative and not based on any evidence before the Court is a perverse finding, so also is a finding preserve if it is unreasonable and unacceptable because it is wrong and completely outside the evidence before the trial Court. In CSS Book Shop Ltd. V. The Regd. Trustees of Muslim Community in Rivers State (2006) 4 SCM 310, the Supreme Court pointed out succinctly inter alia thus:
“A decision of a Court is perverse when it ignores the facts or evidence adduced and admitted before it and when considered as a whole amount to miscarriage of justice. In such a case, an appellate Court is bound to interfere with such a decision and to set it aside.”
Also in UBN PLC V. Chimieze (2014) LPELR – 22699 (SC), the Supreme Court had opined inter alia thus:
“In a seemingly endless number of the decisions of this Court, it has been held that a decision of a Court is perverse when it ignores the facts or evidence before it which lapse when considered as a whole constitutes a miscarriage of justice. In such a case an appellate Court is bound to interfere with such decision and set it aside.”
See further Obajimi V. Adeobi (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 1 @ P. 19; Fabiyi V. State (2013) LPELR – 21180 (CA); Atolagbe V. Shourn (1985) NWLR (Pt. 2) 360; Iwuoha & Anor V. NIPOST Ltd & Anor (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822)308; Overseas Construction Company Nig. Ltd. V. Creek Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 407; Ogunde V. Abdulsalam (2017) LPELR – 41875 (CA) per Georgewill JCA., @ pp. 34 – 35; Michael V. Access Bank Plc (2017) LPELR – 41981 (CA) per Georgewill JCA., @ pp. 38 – 39.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|Fundamental Human Right Rules|