CORAM
PARTIES
K. R. K. Holdings Nigeria Ltd APPELLANTS
1. First Bank of Nigeria Limited
2. SCOA Nigeria Limited
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant sued the Defendant/1st Respondent in the High Court of Lagos claiming the sum of N50 million on grounds that the Defendant/1st Respondent as drawer of three bank certified cheques totalling N4.5 million drawn upon its bank and payable to the Plaintiff was dishonoured upon presentation by the Plaintiff. The Defendant sought to make the 2nd Respondent/third party answerable to this action by filling its defence and applying for leave to issue and serve a Third Party Notice on SCOA Nigeria Limited, same was granted and the third party thereafter filed its defence. The Defendant/1st Respondent claimed to have dishonoured the cheques on the instruction of the Defendant/2nd Respondent whose reason for stopping the draft was due to the absence of consideration from the Plaintiff/Appellant. The trial court at the conclusion of trial dismissed the Plaintiff/Appellant’s case. The Plaintiff/Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal; hence a further appeal has been lodged before this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the lower court is bound by its previous decisions, counsel devoted paragraphs 4.1 -4.13, [pages 6 -9], of the brief ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COUNTERMAND CHEQUES- WHETHER A CHEQUE CAN BE COUNTERMANDED BY THE ISSUER
“It can be seen from Section [75 of the Bill of Exchange Act, Cap 35 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria] that any cheque drawn on the bank can be countermanded by the person who issued it. In such a case the bank has authority to dishonour the cheque.”
FINDINGS OF COURT- STATUS OF FINDINGS OF COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST
“Even then, it is an elementary proposition that findings that are not appealed against remain binding for all times, since they subsist, Okwaranonobi v Mbadugha [2013] 17 NWLR (pt 1383) 255; Nwaogu v Atuma [2013] 11 NWLR (pt 1364) 117; Atanda v Iliasu [2013] 6 NWLR (pt 1351) 529; Uwazurike v Nwachukwu [2013] 3 NWLR (pt 1342) 503, until set aside on appeal, Adeyeye v State [2013] 11 NWLR (pt 1364) 47.”
ACADEMIC ISSUES – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES
“What is more, as it is well-known, academic issues which are, almost always, hypothetical, do not engage the attention of courts since they are not the fora for their ventilation, Imegwu vs Okolocha (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt 1359) 347 and above all are of no utilitarian value Ade vs Unilorin (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt NWLR) 183.”
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – GROUND OF APPEAL MUST RELATE TO THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST
“As every Faculty of Law sophomore is, (or ought to be), aware of, grounds of appeal must relate to the ratio decidendi of the judgment or decision appeal against, Okponipere vs State (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt 1362) 209. In other words, an appeal is usually, against the ratio decidendi and generally not against an obiter dictum U.T.C Nigeria Limted vs Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (PT 103) 244; Saude vs Abdullahi (1989)4 NWLR (Pt 116) 387: Ede vs Omeke (1992) 5NWLR (PT 242) 428; Dakar vs Dapal (1998) 10 NWLR (pt 577) 573.”
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – NATURE OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“The law is trite and well settled that grounds of appeal must spell out in clear terms the aspect of the judgment appealed and also lay the particulars of complaint. In the absence of a focused ground of appeal the appellate court would be engaged in an exercise of futility.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Bill of Exchange Act, Cap 35 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria