UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. E. D. EMOLE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. E. D. EMOLE

EZEANYA DURU V. PETER ONWUMELU
June 20, 2025
EJUETAMI V OLAIYA
June 20, 2025
EZEANYA DURU V. PETER ONWUMELU
June 20, 2025
EJUETAMI V OLAIYA
June 20, 2025
Show all

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. E. D. EMOLE

Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 28171

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Dec 14, 2001

Suit Number: SC.96/1995

CORAM


ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC APPELLANT(S) / DEFENDANT(S)


PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant is standing trial alongside four others in the High court of Lagos state on an information filed 27th of January, 2000 containing allegation of conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder on Chief Alex Ibru and Isaac Porbeni at two different times and causing grievous bodily hurt on Chief Alex Ibru at different period in Ikoyi. The Appellant applied for bail pending trial which was refused at both the trial and appellate court and hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.


HELD


The court held that a court owes a general duty bound to consider and pronounce upon all issues for determination before it, and failure to do so as was in this case did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and granting or refusal of bail pending trial is at the discretion of the court, therefore refusing the Appellant’s application for bail was within the competence of the court lower court.


ISSUES


“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it failed to consider and pronounce upon all the issues formulated by the appellant from the grounds of appeal validly filed and thereby occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right, in the circumstances of this case in  affirming the decision of the trial court refusing appellant bail.”


RATIONES DECIDENDI


A COURT MUST CONSIDER ALL ISSUES RAISED BY PARTIES.


A court of law has a duty to pronounce on all material issues brought before it for determination. PER UWAIFO JSC.


CASES CITED


 The State v. Ajie (2000) 7 SC.(Pt. I) 24; (2000)11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 434. R.v. Robinson (1854) 23 L.J.Q.B. 286; Mamuda Dantata v. Police (1958) NRNLR


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Evidence Act1979 ConstitutionSupreme Court Act 1960


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.