ANAZODO V. PAZMECK INTERTRADE (NIG) LTD & ANOR
March 19, 2025SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD V. MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES & ORS
March 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-02) Legalpedia 38992 (CA)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Feb 3, 2023
Suit Number: SC.347/2010
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI KRKRRE-EKUN
UWANU MUSA ABBA AJI
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU
ADAMU JAURO
PARTIES
1. O. N. NWOKORO
2. HARRISON AGWU
3. SUNDAY CHUKWU
4. MICHAEL OJO
5. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF UYO EAST CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
APPELLANTS
THOMAS AZIPU ASHUE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUDGEMENT, EVIDENCE, LAND LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case of the Respondent as borne out of his pleadings and evidence led at trial was that in 1976, he was allocated a plot of land numbered Plot 227 by Obudu Urban Development Council. He alleged that the 5th Defendant/Appellant and its worshippers broke into the dilapidated building in 1980 and started worshipping therein. When he challenged them, they pleaded with him to allow them use the place for worship until he was ready to develop the plot. He entered a verbal agreement with them to allow them to continue using the building for worship, while he continued farming on the area around the building and the adjoining swamp. The Defendants/Appellants trespassed into his farm in 1994 and destroyed all his crops on the land whereupon he reported the act of trespass to the Obudu Area Town Planning Authority, which summoned the representatives of the Appellant and the Respondent for mediation. He stated that the Appellants however continued to trespass on the land and this led to him instituting the suit before the trial Court.
On the other hand, it was the Appellants’ case that in 1972, their congregation applied to the Obudu Urban Development Council for a plot for use as a place of worship. It was the further case of the Appellants that in 1975, soldiers took over the building and they allowed them to continue to occupy same, while the soldiers were paying rent. After the Army left in 1978, the Appellants retook possession of the building and were in peaceful and quiet possession until 2001 when the Respondent forcefully entered the premises, claiming the plot to be his.
It was the Appellants’ further case that they made a complaint to the Zonal Town Planning Officer, who waded into the matter and made a report. In 2005, the Respondent invaded the Appellants’ property again and destroyed their toilet, sand-filled their water well and carted away some of the movable properties, that upon involving their lawyer, the Lands Office in Calabar intervened and advised them to make peace with the Respondent, but that they saw no need to settle with him as both parties were laying claim to different plots of land, since they did not lay claim to Plot 227 and the Respondent did not lay claim to Plot 223.
Upon the conclusion of trial and after the addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Contrariwise, the Appellants’ counterclaim was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellants appealed to the lower Court, albeit unsuccessfully hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the failure of the lower Court to properly consider the issues submitted to it for determination did not occasion a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENT WRITING – ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
It is now settled that there is no hard and fast rule to be followed by a Court in writing its judgment. Judgment writing is an art, and a Judge who is the artist is not to be restricted by strict rules when it comes to producing his painting, his judgment. Judgment writing is not mathematics where the Judge is to dogmatically follow a certain method, and even in mathematics, there may be more than one method to solve an equation. Every Judge has his personal style of judgment writing and therefore there is no single standard or acceptable form of writing a judgment so long as the judgment captures the essential ingredients of a good judgment and resolves the issue or issues for determination. There is really no set style for a Judge to follow or adopt in writing his judgment, he is at liberty to adopt any method or style that pleases him. See AJIBOYE V. FRN (2018) LPELR-44468 (SC); ANDREW & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2017) LPELR – 48518 (SC); GARUBA V. YAHAYA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1021) 390.
Irrespective of the style adopted however, the following essential components are expected to be situated somewhere in every good judgment:
1. Introduction of issues between the parties.
2. Cases of either side to the litigation going by the pleadings/processes.
3. Evidence adduced by either side.
4. Resolution of the issues of fact and law.
5. The Court’s decision and reasons for arriving at the decision.
See OGBORU & ANOR V. UDUAGHAN & ORS (2012) LPELR – 8287 (SC); PDP V. OKOROCHA & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7832 (SC); OGBA & ORS V. ONWUZO & ANOR (2005) LPELR – 2272 (SC). – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
ADJUDICATION – CONDUCT OF COURTS
In the exercise of its adjudicatory powers, a Court has the bounden duty to consider and determine all the issues submitted to it by the parties for the settlement of their disputes. Where a Court fails to perform its adjudicatory duty or where it refuses or neglects to determine the issues submitted to it, it would have breached the constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing of the party affected as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) and it could occasion a miscarriage of justice. See MBAKA V. MBAKA (2022) 17 NWLR (PT. 1860) 531; NOSPETCO OIL & GAS LTD. V. OLORUNNIMBE (2022) 1 NWLR (PT. 1812) 495; TRANSNAV P.N. LTD. V. VELCAN E.H.D. LTD (2020) 7 NWLR (PT. 1723) 293; RASAKI V. AJIJOLA (NO. 1) (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1617) 13; GARBA V. MOHAMMED (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1537) 114. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
JURISDICTION – POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REMIT APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR REHEARING
Where, as in the instant case, the Court of Appeal abdicated its duty, whether partially or wholesale, to determine all the issues submitted to it for determination, this Court would not hesitate to, in a proper case, remit the appeal to the lower Court for rehearing. This is because, by the combined effect of Sections 233 and 240 of the Constitution, it is the Court of Appeal, not this Court that is vested with jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the State High Court.
In other words, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal directly from the trial Court. See JAIYESIMI & ANOR V. DARLINGTON (2022) LPELR-57344(SC) DIBIA V. STATE (2017) LPELR – 48453 (SC); ABBEY V. STATE (2017) LPELR – 42358 (SC).
Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
APPEAL – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
In AKAYEPE & ANOR V. AKAYEPE (2009) LPELR – 326 (SC) P. 21, Paras. B – E, this Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC elucidated thus:
“The law is indeed well settled that where the Court of Appeal in hearing an appeal against the judgment of a trial Court failed to determine one or more of the issues placed before it by the parties for determination, this Court in hearing an appeal from such a failure, may in proper cases remit such case back to the Court to hear and determine the issue it left undetermined. This is because by the provision of Section 213 of the 1979 Constitution, now Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is to hear and determine appeals from the decisions of the Court of Appeal after hearing and determining the issues placed before it.”
See also OSASONA V. AJAYI (2004) 14 NWLR (PT. 894) 527; KATTO V. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 607) 390.
Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
JUDGMENT – CONDUCT OF THE COURT
While it is correct that every Judge has his own peculiar style of writing his judgment, the judgment must reflect a calm and dispassionate consideration of all the issues submitted to the Court for determination. Not only the parties but any other person reading the judgment must be satisfied that no matter the eventual outcome, the Court was fully alive to its responsibilities and carefully and transparently considered the positions advanced by either side.
It must also give cogent reasons for leaning one way or the other.
Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC
JUDGMENT – CONDUCT OF THE COURT
While it is correct that every Judge has his own peculiar style of writing his judgment, the judgment must reflect a calm and dispassionate consideration of all the issues submitted to the Court for determination. Not only the parties but any other person reading the judgment must be satisfied that no matter the eventual outcome, the Court was fully alive to its responsibilities and carefully and transparently considered the positions advanced by either side.
It must also give cogent reasons for leaning one way or the other.
Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC
APPEAL – DETERINATION OF ISSUES
Where an appellate Court fails to consider and determine all the issues properly raised before it and it is shown, as in this case, that such failure has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, this Court will order a rehearing.
See: Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd. Vs University of Calabar (2004) 4 SC (Pt.1) 65; (2004) LPELR – 1715 (SC) @ 23 D – F; Olayemi & Ors. Vs Federal Housing Authority (2022) LPELR – 57579 (SC) @ 45-46 F – B; Honeywell Flour Mills Plc Vs Ecobank Nig. Ltd. (2018) LPELR-45127 (SC) @ 31-33 F B.
Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC
APPEAL – DUTY OF 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… For a fact, the Court below did neither consider nor pronounce on certain material and fundamental issues canvassed before it by the parties… 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 Okonji v Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 at 150 paras, G-H, the Supreme Court per Uwais, JSC held as follows:- “It is the duty of the Court, whether of first instance or appellate to consider all the issues that have been joined by parties and raised before it for determination. If the Court fails to do so without a valid reason, then it has certainly failed in its duty, for in our judicial system, it is a fundamental principle of administration of justice that every Court has a duty to hear, determine and resolve such question.”
Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
JUDGEMENT – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Even though there is no particular art to judgment writing, nonetheless, a judgment ought to reason out the issues for determination in order to come to a well-considered conclusion which is judicial and judicious. Anything short of that would occasion miscarriage of justice. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Supreme Court Rules
2.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
