SALISU & ANOR VS. MOBOLAJI & ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

1. ALHAJI LASISI SALISU,2. ALHAJI JUBRIL SALISU APPELLANTS

ALHAJI ABBAS MOBOLAJI,ALHAJI YISA OLORUNKEMI, ALHAJI TAIRU AKINOLA RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant brought an application to the Supreme Court seeking an order for leave to raise for the first time in this court and to be heard on appeal the point of law stated in the proposed amended Notice of Appeal, also an order to further amend their Amended Notice of Appeal as well as the brief of argument and reply brief, and to deem the said processes as having been properly filed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

NONE

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RAISING FRESH OR NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL-WHETHER PERMITTED BY COURTS-WHEN A COURT CAN ALLOW SAME

“Generally, this Court will not allow or permit a party to raise a fresh issue or question which was not raised in the Court below or grant leave to a party to argue fresh grounds which were not canvassed in the Court below. The exception being a situation where the new or fresh grounds involve substantial points of law, substantive or procedural which need to be allowed in order to prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice and ensure that substantial justice is seen to be manifestly done in the matter. Notwithstanding, the record must show the evidence already adduced by the party who is relying on the new issue being raised.

FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL-WHEN A COURT CAN ALLOW SAME-DUTY OF AN APPELLANT THERETO

However, the court will normally allow a fresh issue to be raised and argued on appeal where the said issue is relevant and more importantly, where no further evidence will be necessary. All that an appellant is required to do is to seek and obtain leave of the appellate court to so raise the said fresh or new issue. Once this is done and the court is satisfied that in the best interest of justice leave should be granted, it shall be granted, without any further hesitation”

REPLY BRIEF-WHEN NECESSARY TO FILE AND SERVE SAME

“The Rule of Court on this point is very clear. It requires the appellant to file in the court and serve on the respondent a reply brief within four weeks after service of the brief of the respondent on him and that, except for good and sufficient cause shown by the appellant, his reply brief shall be filed and served at least three days before the date set down for the hearing of the appeal”.

AMENDMENT-WHETHER THERE ARE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE COURT CAN ALLOW AMENDMENT OF COURT PROCESSES

“As long as the purpose of or reason for such an amendment is to ensure that the complaints of the appellants against the proceedings in question are laid and ventilated before the court. Indeed, the fact that brief of arguments have been filed and exchanged and the appeal is virtually ready or has been fixed for hearing will not prevent the court from exercising its undoubted discretion to allow an amendment both to the notice and grounds of appeal and the brief of argument. The important consideration must be that the amendment would serve the ends of justice and fairness, and the other party can be compensated by costs”.

AMENDMENT-CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A COURT CAN EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN RESPECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT

“In other words, as long as an amendment being sought is not fraudulent, vexatious, or meant to overreach or merely annoy or embarrass the other party, the court will always be inclined, in the best interest of justice and fairness to exercise its discretion in favour of the application to amend process already filed”.

FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL-CONDITIONS WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN ENTERTAIN SAME

“The law is trite and well settled that it is not within the province of this court to allow a party to raise a fresh issue which he had not raised at the court below. The caveat however is, the issue sought to raise must involve substantial point of law and that evidence avails on the record and establishing such existing point so as to render further evidence undesirable”.

JURISDICTION-IMPORTANT OF

“The law is well established that the question of jurisdiction is so fundamental and without which, the court operates in futility. By the very fact that the jurisdiction of the lower court is put to question, it becomes imperative that the controversy should be resolved for purpose of giving life to the case in issue. Where the jurisdiction of a court is in limbo, the adjudication must be put on hold pending the determination thereof. It is elementary to state that the importance of jurisdiction cannot be underrated for purpose of litigation”.

CASES CITED

Obi Eze Vs. A.G. Rivers State & 1 Or. (2001) 8 NSCQR 537; (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt 746) 524|Owners, M.V. Gongola Hope & Anor Smurfit Vs. SC cases Nigeria Limited & Anor. (2007) 15 NWLR (pt 1056) 189;|(2007) 12 SCM (pt 1) 137; (2007) 6 SC (pt 11) 58|First Bank of Nig. Plc Vs. May Medical Clinics & Diagnostic Centre Ltd (2001) 6 SCM 63; (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.717) 28;|Pharmatek Industrial Projects Ltd. Vs Bayo Ojo (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.359 337 at 338

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Supreme Court Act, Cap S15 LFN 2004,|Supreme Court Rules|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT