AREAS OF LAW:
ELECTION PETITION, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ACTION, JURISDICTION, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
HELD:
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
Was the Court of Appeal right when it struck out Appellants’ Grounds 1, 3 and 4 and issue No. 1 for the reason that competent and incompetent Grounds of Appeal were argued together?
Was the Court of Appeal right in affirming the trial Court’s jurisdiction, given that the main Relief of the 1st Respondent at the trial Court was not against an agency of the Federal Government?
Was the Court of Appeal right to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court to determine the matter upon the 1st respondent’s originating summons in spite of the highly contentious affidavit and documentary evidence tendered by the parties?
Did the Appellants Appeal against the findings made by the Trial Court on Exhibits A, B and C?
Was the 1st Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary objection competent before the Court of Appeal?
Was the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial Court’s judgment not against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial?
RATIOS:
COURT SHOULD NOT DIG INTO RECORDS TO FETCH ISSUES:
It is trite that our system of appeals in our adversary system does not allow or permit a court to dig into the records and fetch issues no matter how patently obvious, and, without hearing the parties, use it to decide an issue in controversy between the parties to the appeal. It runs counter to the impartial status and stance expected of a judge in the system. It is better that the parties raise and argue it by themselves. But if it is so fundamental that it goes to the jurisdiction or vires of the court, then it must be brought to the notice of the parties to the appeal and argument received on it before it is decided – PER OKORO, JSC
COURT TO GIVE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WHERE IT RAISES ISSUES SUO MOTU
By raising an issue suo motu by a court and basing a decision on it without arguments from both parties, the party affected is denied the opportunity of being heard and this is a breach of his right to fair hearing entrenched in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Where a court fails to bring an issue raised suo motu to the attention of the parties and argument taken on it before deciding on it, such a decision is liable to be set aside – PER OKORO, JSC
DUTY OF COURT NOT TO BRUSH ASIDE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BOTHERING ON JURISDICTION
A preliminary objection which borders on jurisdiction cannot be brushed aside by the court but must be considered by the court regardless of the manner in which it was raised. Such issue, I must say can be raised for the first time in this court with or without leave. PER OKORO, JSC
ANY INCOMPETENT GROUND WHERE GROUNDS ARE LUMPED TOGETHER CONTAMINATES THE ENTIRE GROUNDS
Though one can validly lump several related grounds of appeal into one issue and argue same together, if any of the grounds so lumped together is found to be incompetent, then it contaminates the whole issue and renders it incompetent as the court cannot delve into the said issue on behalf of the litigant and excise the argument in respect of the competent grounds from those of the incompetent grounds in the issue. The law is no doubt settled that any issue, or issues formulated for the determination of an appeal must be distilled from, or must arise or flow from a competent ground or grounds of appeal. Again, issues distilled from either incompetent grounds of appeal or a combination of competent and incompetent grounds of appeal are in themselves not competent and are liable to be struck out. An incompetent ground of appeal cannot give birth to a competent issue for determination. PER OKORO, JSC
AN APPEAL WITHOUT LEAVE WHERE LEAVE IS REQUIRED IS INCOMPETENT
It is trite that where leave is required before an appeal could be filed; failure to obtain the leave would not only render the appeal incompetent but also rob the court of its jurisdiction.PER OKORO, JSC
SOURCES OF JURISDICTION
It is now well settled that jurisdiction is the life wire of a court as no court can entertain a matter where it lacks the jurisdiction. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction of courts in this country is derived from the Constitution and statutes. No court is permitted to grant itself power to hear a matter where it is not so endowed and if it does, the entire proceedings and the judgment derived therefrom, no matter how well conducted, is a nullity. Therefore, every court must ensure that it is well endowed with the jurisdiction to hear a matter before embarking on the exercise else it would be wasting precious judicial time –PER OKORO, JSC
RIGHT OF PERSON WHO IS DISSATISFIED WITH POLITICAL PARTY CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION TO SEEK REDRESS IN COURT
It is now well settled that issue of nomination and/or sponsorship of a candidate for an election falls within the domestic affairs of a political party being a pre-primary duty of the party. However, where the political party decides to conduct primary election to choose its flag bearer, any dissatisfied contestant at the primary is now empowered by section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to ventilate his complaint before the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory. PER OKORO, JSC
DUTY OF COURT TO GIVE STATUTES THEIR LITERAL INTERPRETATION WHERE THE WORDINGS ARE CLEAR
It is trite that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the courts are enjoined to give them their ordinary grammatical meaning. PER OKORO, JSC
DUTY OF COURT TO INTERPRETE STATUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE MAKERS
The function of the court is to interpret that document according to the intent of those who made it. PER OKORO, JS
CONCURRENT POWERS OF THE STATE HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT TO ENTERTAIN COMPLAINTS ARISING FROM CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION OF A POLITICAL PARTY
Beyond the items in section 251 of the Constitution upon which the Federal High Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction, section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), an Act of the National Assembly, confers additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to hear and determine disputes, complaints and grievances arising from the conduct of a primary election of a political party. This special jurisdiction so conferred is, by law, to be exercised concurrently with the State High Court and the FCT High Court. PER OKORO, JSC
PROPRIETY OF USING ORIGINATING SUMMONS WHERE A STATUTE IS TO BE INTERPRETED
Where the issue is that of construction of documents or interpretation of statutory provisions, it is safe and prudent to approach the court by Originating Summons. PER OKORO, JSC
COURT SHOULD ORDER PLEADINGS WHEN THERE IS CONFLICT IN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE
IMPROPRIETY OF COURT EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO A PARTY WHO IS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT’S ORDER
INGREDIENTS OF JURISDICTION
CASES MENTIONED:
STATUTES REFERED TO:
Court of Appeal Act
Electoral act 2010 (as amended)
Action Congress of Nigeria Guideline for the Nomination of candidates for Public Offices in Nigeria
Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
AREAS OF LAW:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JURISDICTION, APPEAL, FAIR HEARING
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Plaintiff/Respondent took part in a protest in the Defendant/Appellant institution which led to her invitation to the student’s disciplinary committee by the Senate of the Appellant to answer some questions. The Plaintiff/Respondent however refused to appear before the panel but instituted an action in Court in consequence of which the Defendant/Respondent refused to release the result of the Plaintiff/Respondent till the determination of the suit. At the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Respondent sought inter alia for an injunction restraining the Defendant/Appellant from commencing disciplinary proceedings against her and a declaration that having satisfied the requirements; the Defendant/Appellant does not have the right to withhold her result. The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Respondent. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s ruling, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELEASE OF RESULTS AND AWARD OF RESULTS- POWER OF COURT TO ENTERTAIN ACTION PREDICATED ON REFUSAL OF THE UNIVERSITY TO RELEASE RESULTS
COURT WILL ENTERTAIN MATTERS BOTHERING ON THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY WHERE THE STUDENT HAS EXHAUSTED ALL THE AVAILABLE INTERNAL REMEDIES
CASES MENTIONED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
University of Ilorin Act Cap. U 7 Laws of the Federation, 2004.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted an action against the Defendants/Respondents at the High Court of Lagos State claiming the sum of N2,883,727 (Two Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven Naira] being general and special damages arising from the unlawful termination of his employment by the Defendants/Respondents. The trial Court partly granted the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was dismissed thus culminating into a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the appellant has ably demonstrated sufficient reasons to set aside the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court is flawed
RATIO
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED
“The law is well settled that this court will not interfere or disturb concurrent findings of fact by the courts below unless such findings are found to be perverse or capable of occasioning a miscarriage of justice. This principle which has been restated by this court over the years with unwavering consistency and force is founded on the logic that a trial judge is in a best position to draw inferences from primary facts. The Appellate court can reject an inference or inferences and make what it considers to be the right inferences supported by evidence – PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
COURT SHOULD RESPECT THE AGREEMENT BY PARTIES
In determining the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract, the court must respect the sanctity of contract made by them. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE CANNOT BE USED TO VARY A WRITTEN CONTRACT
“Extrinsic evidence will not be given to contradict, vary, and alter the effect of a written contract”PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
AGREEMENT FOR VARIATION OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT MUST BE PRECISE AND CLEAR
“The general rule is that an agreement for variation of an existing contract must itself posses the characteristics of a valid contract such as offer, acceptance and consideration” ”PER WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC
LENGTH OF NOTICE TO BE GIVEN IN A WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN CONTRACTS
lt is well settled that in such relationship an employer can terminate the service of an employee at any time, giving the appropriate length of notice stipulated in the contract or such length of notice deemed by the court to be reasonable in the circumstance of the case, in the absence of any express provision for length of notice in the contract of service: see IMOLOAME v. WAEC (1992) 9NWtR (pt 265) 303 at 321. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
HOW COURT CAN AWARD DAMAGES WHERE TERMINATION OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS WRONGFUL
“The position of the law is that where the termination of a contract of service was found to have been wrongful, the measure of damages that the plaintiff could be entitled to would be the salaries for the length of time during which notice of the termination would have been given in accordance with the contract of employment. He would, in addition, be paid other legitimate entitlements due to him at the time his employment was terminated. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
WHEN ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFULNESS ARISES IN A CONTRACT
In a contract of employment, the element of unlawfulness arises, where in carrying out the decision to terminate the employment, the employed or employee has failed, neglected or refused to adhere to the principles laid down by statute, in a case of contract with statutory flavor, or by the terms of contract contained in the letter of employment, in ordinary contract of employment – PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
COURT TO USE A REASONABLE MAN’S TEST WHERE PERIOD OF NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT NOT STATED
Where the period of notice is not stipulated in contract of employment, it behoves on the trial court to apply the test of a reasonable man to imply the period of notice that would have been adequate in the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the employment, the length of service etc. – PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
IMPROPRIETY OF RAISING AN ISSUE NOT PRONOUNCED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT ON APPEAL
lt is trite law that an issue which is not raised, argued and pronounced upon by a trial court, cannot be validly raised as a ground of appeal or as issue for determination before the appellate court, as such issue or argument made thereon are not competent and therefore go to no issue. PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – ONLY PARTIES TO A CONTRACT CAN SUE AND BE SUED
In other words, only the parties to a contract can sue or be sued on the contract; a stranger to a contract can neither sue nor be sued on the contract ”PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
DEFINITION OF AN ALTERNATIVE AWARD
“An alternative award is an award that can be made instead of another. It is a separate claim and a separate award. It is not claimed as an additional award. This must be avoided, otherwise it would amount to double compensation”PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
COURT SHOULD CONSTRUE ALTERNATIVE AWARDS STRICTLY
“In law, alternative reliefs are construed distinctively and not conjunctively”PER ONNOGHEN, JSC
NETTING ASIDE CONCURRENT FINDING OF LAW BY LOWER COURT – SPECIAL CIRCUMATSNCES UNDER WHICH SUPREMEM COURT CAN INTERFER
“It is settled principle of law that the Supreme Court does not make a practice of netting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless there are very special circumstances such as where the findings are perverse or not supported having regard to the evidence on record or were reached as a result of applying a wrong approach to the evidence or as a result of a wrong application of a principle of substantive or procedural law – PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
BINDINGNESS OF PARTIES BY TERMS OF CONTRACT
It is trite that where parties enter into a contract, they are bound by the terms thereof and the court will not allow to read into such a contract terms on which there is no agreement. In other words, the rights, duties and obligations of the parties must reasonably and lawfully be construed within the ambits of the said document – PER KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JSC
COURT SHOULD NOT GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF WHERE THE MAIN RELIEF IS GRANTED
“It is trite that upon the grant of a principal relief, the court is not to consider or even look at the alternative relief – PER AKA’AHS, JSC
CASES MENTIONED
M.C CAROLINE MAERSK & 20RS V. NOKOY INVESTMENT LTD (2002) 6SCNJ 208 At 224
AJAO V. ADEMOLA (2005) 3NWLR (Pt 913) 636 At 340
AGIDIGBI V. AGIDIGBI (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt 454) 300
KOIKI V. MAGNUSSON (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492
G. K. F. INVESTMENT LTD V. NIGERIA TELECOMMUNICATION PLC (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 344
UNION BANK NIG. LTD V. UMEH & SONS LTD (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 426) 565.
ABIMBOLA VS ABATAN (2011) 9 NWLR (Ft 717) 66
IRIRI V. ERTHURHOBORA (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 252, (1991) 3 SC NJ I
NIGERIAN BOTTLING COMPANY LTD V. CONSTANCE O. NGONADI (1985) 5 SC, 317
OGBECHIE V. ONOCHIE (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 370 At 390
Military Gov, Of Lagos State 8 4 Ors, V. Adeyiga & 6 Ors. (2012) 2SC (Pt.I) P.68
ACN V. Lamido & 4 Ors. (2012) 2SC (Pt,Ii) P.163
ENANG VS ADU (1981) 11 – 12 SC 25
IGWEGO VS EZEUGO, (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 561
OGUNBAYO VS STATE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 157 At 185 – 186
ADEWOLE VS DADI (2003) 4 NWLR (Ft 810) 3fi9) 619 At 378
PILLIPS VS E. O. C. & M.D. CO. LTD (7013) 1 NWLR (Pt, 1336) 6118 At 640
HIGH GRADE SERVICE LTD V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (1991) 1NWLR (Pt 167) 290
AGBI & ANOR V. OGBEH & ORS. (2006) 11NWLR (Pt 990) 65 At 116
AJIBADE V. PEDRO (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 241) 257 At Page 269
IBAMA V. SHELL (2005) 10 SC. 74 PP 75- 76
Udogwu V. OKI (1990) 5NWLR CPT 153) 721 At 736
G. K. F. INVESTMENT (NIG) LTD V. NIGERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC (2009) 13NWLR (Pt 1164) 344 Pp 377-388
CHUKWUMA V. SHELL PETROLEUM (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt 289) 512 And 539
DA ROCHA V. HUSSEIN (1958) SCNLR 280
CHUKWUMA MAKWE V. NWUKOR & ANOR (2001) 14NWLR (Pt 733) 356
CHITTY ON CONTRACTS Vol. 1 Para. 19.002 P. 961
GEIDAM V. NEPA (2001) 2NWLR (Pt 696) 45
NWAUBANI V. GOLDEN GUINEA BREWERIES PLC. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 400) 184 At 207
CHUKWUMA V. SHELL PETROLEUM (1993) 4NWLR (Pt 289) 512 At 560.
IMOLOAME V. WAEC (1992) 9NWLR (Pt 265) 303 At 321
IHEKWOABA V. ACB LTD (1998) 10NWLR (Pt 871) 590 At 621
KOIKI V. MAGNUSSON (1999) 8NWLR (Pt 615) 492 At 514
BABA V. N. C. A. T. C. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 192) 388.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act
AREAS OF LAW:
DEFAMATION: WORDS THAT CONSTITUTES SAME:
PROCEDURE: HOW THE COURT DETERMINES A DEFAMATORY STATEMENT:
LIBEL: STATEMENTS THAT MAY GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION:
DEFAMATION: COURT TO CONSTRUE WORDS USED AS A WHOLE
LIBEL: WHAT CONSTITUTES A LIBELOUS STATEMENT
CASES CITED:
DIN v. AFRICAN NEWS PAPER LIMITED (1990) 2NWLR (pt 139) 392
Akomolafe & anor. V. Guardian Press Ltd & 3 ors (2010) I SC (Ptl) p.58
Guardlan Newspaper Ltd & anor. V. Ajeh (2011) 4SC (Pt.ii) p.69
ONYEJIKE V ANYASOR (1992) l NWLR (pt. 218) 437
DIN V. AFRICAN NEWSPAPERS LTD (7990) 2 NWLR (pt. L39) 392
DUMBO v. IDUGHOE (1983) 1 SCNLR 29
AYENI V. DADA (1978) 3 SC. 35
BAMGBOYE V. LARENWAJU (1997) 22 NSCC (pt. 1) 501
SKETCH PIIBLISHING COMPANY LTD & ANOR. V. ALHAJI AZEES A. AJAGBEM0KEFERI (I989) 1 NWLR (pt. 700) 678
OFFOBOCHE V. OGOJA LOCAL GOVERMMENT (2001) FWLR( PT 68) 1051
OKOLO V. MIDWEST NEWSPAPER CORPORATION (1977) 1 SC 33
OKAFOR V IKEANYI,(1973) 3 – 4 S.C. 99
DULUMO V. SKETCH PUBLICATION COMPANY LTD (1972) 5 SC 308
ONU V AGBESE (1985) l NWLR (pt.4) 704
STATUTES MENTIONED: NIL
PLEADINGS: PLEADINGS TO BE PROVED BY ORAL EVIDENCE
APPEAL: WHEN THE SUPREME COURT CAN UPSET CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF COURTS BELOW
PRACTICE: CLOSING SPEECH NOT TO TAKE PLACE OF EVIDENCE:
EVIDENCE: PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE
:CASES CITED:
STATUTES MENTIONED:
The Chiefs Law
Attention, Nigerian Lawyers! Ever wished for a legal companion that anticipates your needs and empowers…
Legalpedia AI Analysis Result of the Nigeria Startup Act, 2022. Key Provisions, Principles, and Obligations…
Every lawyer needs advocacy skills to be able to win cases in court. According to…
Here's a classical conversational story on the Legalpedia-Connect Platform for lawyers. Enjoy the conversation. Once…
THE ULTIMATE COMMUNITY, COLLABORATION AND LEGAL RESEARCH SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM FOR LAWYERS. I used to…
The Ultimate Legal Community, Collaboration and Research Platform is here for you. If you’ve ever…