LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION:LER[2018]CA/AK/124/2017 

AREAS OF LAW: ACTION, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, ELECTION MATTER, FAIR HEARING, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Federal High Court, Abuja, on 17th December, 2015, delivered judgment in favour of the Appellant which, inter alia, directed the 1st Respondent to recognise it as political party. As a result, the Appellant via an originating summons, sought for an order among others, compelling the 1st Respondent to allow it participate in the Ondo State Local Government Election scheduled for 23rd April, 2016. It was settled by Femi Aborishade, Esq. On 21st March, 2017, the lower court granted the application of one Segun Ogodo, Esq. as the counsel for the Appellant, the fourth and fifth Respondents. On 29th March, 2017, when the suit came up for hearing, Segun Ogodo, Esq. and E. Udofot, Esq. (holding the brief of Femi Aborisade, Esq.) announced appearance for the Appellant. The lower court ruled that Segun Ogodo, Esq. was the counsel for the Appellant based on its earlier order made on 21st March, 2017. On 30th March, 2017, the Appellant filed a notice of withdrawal of the suit and an application seeking to change Segun Ogodo, Esq. On 31st March, 2017, the suit came up and Femi Aborisade, Esq. (leading E. Udofot, Esq.) and Segun Ogodo, Esq. announced appearance for the Appellant, the fourth and fifth Respondents. The lower court, in a brief bench ruling, declared the appearance of Femi Aborisade, Esq. as of no moment and recognised that of Segun Ogodo, Esq. for the Appellant. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision, hence has filed an appeal to this court. The 1^st and 3^rd Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the appeal on grounds that there was no ruling by the trial court against People Redemption Party (PRP) on the basis of which an appeal can be brought and that the necessary parties were not before the court hence, the appeal is incompetent.

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed

 

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

• Whether the lower court has not denied the Appellant of its Constitutional and fundamental right to fair hearing.

RATIONES:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- CONCEPT OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

“To begin with, a preliminary objection is a specie of objection which, if sustained by a court, will render further proceedings in a matter unnecessary, see Abe v. UniIlorin (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 183; APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531; Jim – Jaja v. C.P, Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225. For this reason, the law commands the court to deal with a preliminary objection, when raised in any proceedings, first, see APC v. INEC (Supra);  Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 357; Efet v. INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 423; Sa’eed v. Yakowa (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 133; Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; SPDCN Ltd. v. Agbara (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 353; Agbaje v. INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 151; Allanah v. Kpolokwu (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 1; Umanah (Jnr.) v. NDIC (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256; Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

CASE LAW– DISTINCTION BETWEEN A RATIO DECIDENDI AND AN OBITER DICTUM

“A ratio decidendi denotes the legal principle which is important in the determination of the issues raised in a case, ide est, the binding portion of the decision, the reason behind a decision.  Contrariwise, an obiter dictum signifies a passing remark made by a Judex in a decision which is not necessary for it.  While the former is submissive to appeal, the latter does not.  Whereas, a ratio decidendi in a case is binding on a lower court, qua similarity of facts, on the footing of the hallowed doctrine of stare decisis, an obiter dictum is stripped of such authority save it is adopted as ratio in a later case, see Afro – Continental V. Ayantuyi (1995) 12 SCNJ 1/(1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 420) 411; Dairo V. UBN Plc. (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 99; Osakue V. FCF, Asaba (2010) 10 NWLR (pt. 1201) 1; Odunukwe V. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (pt. 1225) 404; NDP V. INEC (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 392; Abacha V. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt. 660) 228; Adelekan V. Ecu – Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (pt. 993) 333; Adedayo V. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; PDP v. Sylva (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 74; Atanda v. Comm., L. & H., Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 32..” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

DECISION OF A COURT – MEANING OF DECISION OF A COURT

“A decision of a court means “in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation”, see section 318 of the Constitution, as amended, Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 293; Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205. The operative word “determination”, an uncountable noun, which is not defined in section 318 of the Constitution, as amended, connotes “the setting of a controversy by a judicial decision; a coming to a decision”’ see Omisore v. Aregbesola (supra), at 263, per Nweze, JSC.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

NECESSARY PARTY – WHO IS A NECESSARY PARTY TO A SUIT?

“In the view of the law, a necessary party to a proceeding, distinct from a desirable party, is a person whose presence and participation is essential for an effective and complete determination of claim before a court, see Green v. Green (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) 795; Babayeju v. Ashamu (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 546; Cotecna Int’l Ltd v. Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 346; P.W.T. (Nig.) Ltd. v. J.O.B. Int’l (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 1; ADC v. Bello (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1545) 112; G.W.V.S. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nigeria LNG Ltd. (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1568) 381.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

PARTY TO A SUIT – WHETHER THE ISSUE OF PROPER/IMPROPER PARTIES AFFECTS THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE MATTER

“Similarly, an issue of proper/improper parties touches and impinges on the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter in limine. Indeed, “a person who asserts the right claimed or against whom the right claimed is exercisable must be present to give the court the necessary jurisdiction”, see Olariede v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390 at 406, per Eso, JSC; Ekpere v. Aforiji (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 220; Onwunalu v. Osademe (1971) 1 All NLR 14; Awoniyi v. Reg. Trustees of AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522; Mozie v. Mbamalu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466; Plateau State v. A.-G., Fed. (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61; G. & T. Investment Ltd. v. Witts & Bush Ltd. (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 500. The wisdom for such joinder of a party is to make him bound by the result of the suit, see Babaeoju v. Ashame (supra); Rinco Const. Co. v. Veepee Ind. Ltd. (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85; Carrena v. Akinlase (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) 262; P.W.T. (Nig.) Ltd. v. J.B.O. Int’l (supra); APC v. Karfi (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1592) 457. PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

 

 

PARTY – WHO IS A PARTY IN A SUIT?

“A party is a person by or against whom a legal action is sought and whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant, see Green v. Green (supra); Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494; Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342; Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 229. In the view of the law, a person aggrieved, which is coterminous with a person having an interest, is “a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongly refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something”, see Ikonne v. C.O.P. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 36) 473 at 503, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC; CPC v. Nyako (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 451; Bakure v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320; Odedo v. Oguebego (supra); PDP v. Sylva (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 74; Assams v. Ararume (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1493) 368. An appellant is a party who appeals from the decision of a lower court, see FRN v. Nwosu (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1541) 226; PDP v. Sylva (supra).” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER- MEANING AND NATURE OF CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER

“In the eyes of the law, consequential denotes “following as a result of inference, following or resulting indirectly”, see Eze v. Gov, Abia State (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 192 at 216, per Rhodes – Vivour, JSC. Then, “A consequential order is not one merely incidental to a decision but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from, and inevitably consequent upon it,” see Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 167) 270 at 288, per Nnaemeka – Agu, JSC. Thus, a consequential order gives meaning and effect to a judgment without granting a fresh relief. It must be a product or bye-product of the main suit and the evidence. Hence, the law gives the court the inherent power to grant consequential orders in deserving cases, see Eagle Super Pack (Nig)  Lad v. ACB Plc. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20; Akeem v. University of Ibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 584; Regd. Trustee, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 514; Amechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227; Unity Bank Plc. V. Denclag Ltd. (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 293; Eze v. Gov. Abia State (supra); Osuji v. Ekeocha (supra)/(2009) 7 SCNJ 248; Ishola v. Folorunso (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1210) 169; OSIEC v. AC (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226); Tindafai v. Jara (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 19; Namman v. Hajo (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 411.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

 

 

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – IMPLICATION OF FLOUTING A PARTY’S RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

“Where a party’s inviolate right to fair hearing is flouted, no matter the quantum of fair-mindedness, dexterity, artistry and objectivity injected in the proceeding hosting the breach, it will be mired in a nullity, see Nyeson v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452; C. K & W. M. C. Ltd v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 487; Eze v. Unijos (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1593) 1; Ezenwaji v. U.N.N. (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 485; Poroye v. Makarfi (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 91; APC v. Nduul(2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1. This is a confluence point where want of fair hearing and jurisdiction embrace themselves to vitiate proceedings that give birth to denial of fair hearing, see O.O.M.F. Ltd. v. NACB Ltd. (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 412; Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 552; Achuzia v. Ogbomah(2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 59; Apeh v. PDP (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 153; Aba v. Monday (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1480) 569.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

 

“NULLITY” – WHAT DOES “NULLITY” DENOTE IN LAW?

“In the eyes of the law, nullity denotes: “Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a case which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place; or which has absolutely no legal force or effect”, see Lasisi v. State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 133 at 146, per Ngwuta JSC; Ezenwaji v. U.N.N. (supra); Mamman v. Hajo (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 411.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

DECISION OF COURT – CONSEQUENCE OF A DECISION OF COURT THAT IS A NULLITY

“The dire consequence of a nullity is far-reaching.  If a decision or proceeding is infested with nullity, it is void and taken as if it was never given or made, see Okoye v. Nigeria Const. &Furniture Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342.  Moreover, such a decision or proceeding, in the view of the law, bestows no enforceable right on its beneficiary party who possesses it nor does it impose any obligations on its victim party, see Ajibola v. Ishola(2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 628;Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe(2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265. . The bounden duty of a court is to set aside a null order ex debito justitiae in that it does not exist in law, see Mamman v. Hajo (supra); N. A. C. B. Ltd. v. Ozoemelam (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 376;” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

 

GROUND OF APPEAL – ESSENCE OF A GROUND OF APPEAL

“Indisputably, a ground of appeal is the focus of an appeal.  It denotes the totality of the reasons why a decision complained of is considered wrong by an appealing party, see Ehinlanwo v. Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 357; Ugboaja v. Akintoye – Sowemimo (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 278; Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421; Labour Party v. Bello (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt.1548) 145. It binds the courts and parties, see Udom v. Umana (No. 1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179. Its essence is to notify an opponent, usually a respondent, the nature of the adversary’s, invariably an appellant’s, complaints against a decision, see Abe v. Unilorin (Supra); Aderounmu v. Olowu (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 253; Lagos State v. Sarhuna (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 455) 1617; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; Ogboru v. Okowa (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 84; Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142; PDP v. Sheiff (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219; Kente v. Ishaku (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 94; PDP v. Sherrif (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219; GTB Plc. v. Innoso Nig. Ltd. (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1591) 181; Nweke v. Unizik, Awka (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 454; Atanda v. Comm., L. & H., Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 32..” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

GROUND OF APPEAL – FUNCTION OF A GROUND OF APPEAL IN AN APPEAL

“It is trite, that a ground of appeal, which is the nucleus of every appeal, must attack and disclose nexus with a decision that is the subject of appeal.  In the sight of the law, a ground of appeal must be linked to and question a ratio decidendi, not an obiter dictum, of a judgment.  Any ground of appeal formulated in nubibus runs foul of this cardinal rule of law and risks being struck out on account of incompetence, see Adelekan V. Ecu – Line NV (supra); Balonwu V. Governor of Anambra State (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 236; Lawrence V. A.- G; Fed. (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 484; Okonobor V. D. E. & S. T. Co. Ltd. (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 181; Odunukwe V. Ofomata (supra); FBN Plc. V. TSA Ind. Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247; D. T. T. Ent. (Nig.) Co. Ltd. V. Busari (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 387; Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1269) 145, Isaac v. Imaseun (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 250; Okafor v. Abumofuani (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) 117; Udom v. Umana (No.1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO FORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“It is a settled law that an issue for determination must flow from a ground(s) of appeal. Where an issue is not a progeny of a ground(s) of appeal, it is rendered incompetent and the court will be disrobed of the jurisdiction to entertain it, see Omagbemi v. Guinness Nig. Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 377) 258; Lewis v. UBA Plc. (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 329; Isaac v. Imasuen (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 250; Okereke v. Umahi (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1524) 438; Udom v. Umana (No. 1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179; Nsirim v. Amadi (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1504) 42; Udom v. Umana (No. 1) (supra); Lewis v. UBA Plc. (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 329; Salisu v. Mobolaji (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 242.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

ACADEMIC SUIT- WHEN IS A SUIT ACADEMIC?

“In Plateau State v. A-G., Fed (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346 at 419, Tobi, JSC, incisively, explained the term, thus:

A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound, and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour.  A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity.”

• PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

ACADEMIC DISPUTES – WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE OVER ACADEMIC DISPUTES

“It is settled law, that a court is divested of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over academic disputes. It is settled law, that a court is divested of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over academic disputes. Such academic questions are divorced from live issues which engage the adjudicative attention of the courts.  This is so even if their determination will enrich the jurisprudential content of the law, see A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G., Fed. (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 931) 572; Ugba v. Suswan (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264; Salik v. Idris (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 36; FRN v. Borishade (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) 155; Danladi v. T.S.H.A. (2015) 2 NWLR 9Pt. 1442) 103; FRN v. Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1452) 141; Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (pt. 1463) 113; Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 229; Dickson v. Sylva (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 299; Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd. 2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 343.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING – MEANING OF FAIR HEARING

“Fair hearing means a trial which is conducted in accordance with all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done/dished out to parties to the cause, see Eze c. FRN (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 433; Ardo v. INEC (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1583) 450; Regt. Trustees, P.C.N. v. Etim (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1581) 1.” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING – CONCEPT OF FAIR HEARING

“The ancient concept of fair hearing derives it root from divinity.  It was a common law doctrine which has metamorphosed into the corpus of our jurisprudence and, firmly, entrenched in section 36 of the Constitution, as amended.  It donates to the citizens the inviolable right to ventilate their grievances on the altar of the twin concrete pillars of natural justice to wit: audi alteram parterm-hear the other side and nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in his own case.  The whole essence of fair hearing, which is co-extensive with fair trial, connotes giving parties to any proceedings, be it judicial or administrative, an equal opportunity to present their cases.  It follows, that fair hearing is, totally, divorced from correctness of a decision.  It centres on the cardinal principle that a fair-minded person who watched the proceedings, before a court or administrative or quasi judicial body, should conclude that it exhibited even handedness/fairness in apportioning justice to the feuding parties,  see O.O.M.F. Ltd. v. NACB (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 412;Nwanegbo v. Olawole(2011) 37 WRN 101; Kim v. State (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 17;Newswatch Comm. Ltd. v. Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144;FRN v. Akabueze(2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 525; S & D Const. Co. Ltd. v. Ayoku(2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1265) 487;Ovunwo v. Woko(2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522; Nigeria Navy v. Labinjo(2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 56; J.S.C., Cross River State v. Young (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364)1;Mpama v. FBN Plc(supra); Aba v. Monday (2015)14 NWLR (Pt. 1480) 569; Gov., Zamfara State v. Gyalange(2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 462;Achuzia v. Ogbomah(2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1522) 59;Danladi v. Dangari(2015)2 NWLR (Pt. 1442)124; Labour Party v. Bello (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1548) 148; Darma v. Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1571) 480”. PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

ORDER OF COURT- EXTENT OF THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF COURT

“It is elementary law, that an order of court, whether trial or appellate, is valid until it is set aside either by the court which issued it or another court of competent jurisdiction. This is so even where the order is made per incuriam, see Oguebego v. PDP (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 446; PDP v. Asadu (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1541) 251; Adesigbin v. Mil. Gov., Lagos State (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1574) 442; Zakirai v. Muhammad (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1594) 181; Edilcon (Nig.) Ltd v. U.B.A. Plc (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1596) 74. . Indeed, a court of law is invested with the jurisdiction to protect its own order from being treated with contempt, see Jev. v. Iyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 575; Oguebego v. PDP (supra).” PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A.

 

ORDER OF COURT – POWER OF THE COURT TO MAKE ORDERS

“A judge is the master of his court and, so long as there is no miscarriage of justice against any of the parties, a court can make such orders as are necessary to bring the matter to a just conclusion within the rules of court and according to law. Dapialong vs. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR(Pt.1036) pg. 239.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

ORDER OF COURT – WHAT IS AN ORDER OF COURT?

“An order of court is one which directs a party to a case to do something in relation to the case. Chia vs. Uma (1998) 7 NWLR (pt.556) pg. 95, Bello vs Fayose (1999) 11 NWLR (pt. 627) pg. 510.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

ORDER OF COURT – VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF COURT

“An order of a court of competent jurisdiction subsists until it is set aside. Gomwalk vs. Military Administrator, Plateau State(1998) 7 NWLR(Pt. 558)pg. 413, Ezeokafor vs. Ezeilo(1999)9 NWLR(pt. 619)pg. 513.” PER U. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

STATUTES REFERRED TO:

African Charter on Human and People’s Rights Cap. A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012