LAWRENCE JIRGBAGH v. UNION BANK OF NIG. PLC
June 25, 2025DAVID ITAUMA V FRIDAY JACKSON AKPE-IME
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 14519
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 7, 2000
Suit Number: SC. 304/1990
CORAM
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE ,SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. MICHAEL A. OMO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff, a senior magistrate was removed in office by the 3rd defendant. He sought declaration from the court to invalidate the alleged removal from office. The defendants’ averred that the jurisdiction of the court is ousted.
HELD
The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal which held that the action of the military governor was ousted by the Decree.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Court of Appeal acted properly in expunging part of the Appellants argument based on the issue as formulated, when the Court has adopted the said issue, merely on the ground that the issue was wider than the ground of appeal and without inviting arguments from Counsel before doing so?(2) Assuming that the Court of Appeal was wrong in so expunging part of the Appellants argument, could the Appellant be said to have had a fair-hearing?(3) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the evidence of DW4 was not a hearsay when that evidence was tendered not merely to prove that DW4 received an instruction from the Military Governor but also to prove the truth of that instruction even though the maker of the Statement, the Military Governor was not called as a witness and when no foundation has been laid for not calling him as a witness?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ANY PART OF A DECISION NOT APPEALED AGAINST CAN NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL
“Issues or questions for determination in an appeal are framed from the grounds of appeal before the court. Consequently an issue, argument or other part of a brief which has no ground or grounds of appeal to support it or which is based on a ground of appeal for which no leave has been sought or obtained is not only incompetent but completely valueless”…KATSINA ALU JSC
DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO REVIEW EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES
“This Court has times without number emphasised that it is no business of the appeal court to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the learned trial judge and I find it again necessary to point out that miscarriage of justice will definitely result from adopting such a course of action when it is unwarranted” …KATSINA ALU JSC
CASES CITED
1. Idika v. Erisi (No.2) (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 563; 2. Osinupebi v. Saibu (1982) 7 SC 104. 3. Ijayi v. Eyigebe (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 523, 4. Olorosago v. Adebanjo (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 88) 275 at 283, 1) 5. Idiaka v. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR Pt. 78 563 at 579 – 580, 6. Victor Woluchem & ors. v. Chief Simeon Gudi & Ors. (1981) 5 SC 319 at 326; 7. Akinloye v. Eyiyola (1968) NMLR 92 at 95 SC
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Sections 76, 77 (b) and 149(c) of the Evidence Act2. The Public Officers (Special provisions) Decree, 1984.3. Decree No.17 of 1984.?
