Court

• Pages: 6-786

6

COURT.

DUTY OF COURT.

Amendment of charge and duty on Court in respect of. “Section 154 of the ACJL, Lagos

provides that: Where the charge preferred against any person is imperfect or erroneous, the Court

may permit or direct the framing of a new charge or add to or otherwise alter the original charge.

The other sections provide thus: Section 155 - (1): The prosecution may apply to alter or add to

any charge at any time before judgment is given or verdict returned. (2) Every such alteration or

addition or new charge shall be read and explained to the defendant. (3) No formal application

shall be required for a prosecution to frame a new charge or amend the charge before any Court.”

– Per Nweze, J.C.A., in Eseu v. The People of Lagos State Suit No. CA/L/1151A/2011; (2014) 2

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1390) 109 at 130.

Bindingness of terms of contract on parties thereto and duty on Court in respect of. “It is trite

that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement and the Court will certainly not step into the

arena to dictate new terms for them. Instead, the Court, as an impartial umpire, exists only to

interpret strictly the terms of such contracts or agreements as entered into between the parties. I

should also mention that the Court will usually take cognition of the agreement of the parties as

well as the custom of the trade concerned.” – Per Sankey, J.C.A., in Adetoro v. U.B.N. Plc Suit

No. CA/IL/48/2006; (2008) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1104) 255 at 296.

Can a Court of law engage in an exercise of futility? “It is trite law and elementary that a Court

of law does not engage in an exercise in futility. This has been pronounced in a plethora of

authorities; for example, see the cases of U.B.N. Ltd. v. Edionseri (1988) 1 N.S.C.C. 603 at 610,

(1988) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 74) 93 and Bhojwani v. Bhojwani (1996) 7 S.C.N.J. 457) 661.” – Per

Salami, P.C.A., in Fayemi v. Oni Suit No. CA/IL/EPT/GOV/1/10; (2010) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1222)

326 at 406.

Can arbitration clause oust the jurisdiction of the High Court? “No arbitration clause in any

agreement can be made to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court granted under Section 272(1) of

the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Thus, where an arbitration fails to

produce an amicable settlement of the dispute, either party is at liberty to approach the Court for

the determination of the dispute.” – Per Okoro, J.C.A., in L.S.W.C. v. Sakamori Const. (Nig.) Ltd.

Suit No. CA/L/849/2010; (2011) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1262) 569 at 599.

Can Court act on instinct, sentiments and speculations. “It is trite to say that for a Judge to

proceed on its own motion to take judicial notice of facts without a party laying the foundation and

calling upon it appropriately to take such a judicial notice is a very dangerous thing to do in our

adversary system of adjudication where the Judge is supposed to be an umpire and hold the

balance. That will amount to the Court acting on instinct, sentiments and relying on speculations.

The Court is not at liberty to act on any of those factors. In order words, instinct, assumptions and

sentiments have no role to play in adjudications. See Katto v. C.B.N. (1991) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 214)

126 at 145. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge formed the following opinions at page 72 of

the record: “The more than 300 kms between Calabar and Ogoja will now act as a barrier to war

and an agent of peace. Peace is better than money what the witness will loose (sic) in monetary

terms the society at large will gain in peace terms.” I agree with the learned counsel for the

7

appellants that these philosophical postulations were not based on any materials before the trial

Court. They are at best borne out of instinct, assumptions and sentiments which are not good

premises for adjudication and the Court should not indulge in them. See State v. Aibangbee (1988)

3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 84) 548 at 555; A.I.C. Ltd. v. N.N.P.C. (2005) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 937) 563 at 597;

Ubene v. C.O.P. (2005) I.N.C.C. 624 at 640; (2005) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 921) 360.” – Per Ibiyeye,

J.C.A., in Odock v. State Suit No. CA/C/91/2005; (2007) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1033) 369 at 399.

Can Court draw conclusion outside available evidence. “It is equally the law to state that no

Court has a right apart from taking judicial notice of a notorious fact in a proper case to draw

conclusions outside the available evidence.” – Per Ibiyeye, J.C.A., in Odock v. State Suit No.

CA/C/91/2005; (2007) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1033) 369 at 399.

Can Courts indulge in legal double-talk. “It is an understatement to say that the trial Court

clearly abdicated its duties in this matter. Rather it has chosen to lash out in heavy sarcasm at the

appellants counsel. With respect, Courts are not known to indulge in legal double-talk.” – Per

Chukwuma-Eneh, J.C.A., in Ushae v. C.O.P. Suit No. CA/C/97/2002; (2005) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

937) 499 at 535.

Can duty be on Court to speculate address of counsel for service. “It is not the duty or business

of the Court to speculate on probable address of the counsel.” – Per Abdullahi, J.C.A., in N.Y.A.M.

Co. Plc v. All Motors (Nig.) Plc. Suit No. CA/IL/M.9/2008; (2011) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1269) 108 at

138.

Can the Court make consequential order for payment of specific sum not proved? “To my

mind, if this Court orders that a specific sum of money be paid to the appellants when there is no

evidence to support the sum ordered to be paid, that would be wrong as a consequential order

should not be given for unproven relief.” – Per Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., in Eze v. Gov., Abia State

Suit No. S.C. 209/2010; (2014) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1426) 192 at 216.

Distinct duty of parties and Court in a case. “Jawondo made one curious submission. He took

the view that the lower Court ought to have called an independent valuer to re-evaluate the two

valuation reports prepared by Toki and Co. I am in entire agreement with Chief Adeyele that it

was the duty of parties to present their cases. The trial Judge’s duty was to assess and evaluate the

evidence thus presented and make findings of fact.” – Per Nweze, J.C.A., in P.I.P. Ltd. v. Trade

Bank (Nig.) Plc. Suit No. CA/IL/71/2007; (2009) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1159) 577 at 637.

Duties of a Court of law. “It is trite that one of the several functions of the Court, if not the

foremost, is for any Court set up by the Constitution or a Legislation to do manifest justice which

will not attract any adverse comments from any reasonable or knowledgeable members of the

public. The resume of the foregoing is that there is need for fair hearing in any litigation whether

criminal or civil. Election petition is subsumed in both of them.” – Per Ibiyeye, J.C.A., in Awuse

v. Odili Suit No. CA/PH/EPT/54/2004; (2005) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 952) 515 at 534.

Duties of a trial Court in doing justice in any matter before it. “To do justice in any matter, it

is the duty of the trial Court to consider all the evidence proffered by all the parties, ascribe

probative value to them, make definite findings of fact, apply relevant law and come to a

8

conclusion.” – Per Ogunwumiju, J.C.A., in Statoil (Nig.) Ltd. v. Inducon (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No.

CA/L/284/2011; (2014) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1411) 43 at 80.

Duties on Court not to deal with issues not raised by the parties and not to grant reliefs not

claimed by the parties. “The law is that a Court should not embark in our adversarial

jurisprudence in dealing with issues or arguments not raised by the parties. The Court also cannot

grant reliefs not claimed by the parties in the pleadings. See Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (supra).” –

Per Ogunwumiju, J.C.A., in Njaba L.G.C. v. Chigozie Suit No. CA/PH/LGE/396/2008; (2010) 16

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1218) 166 at 193-194.

Duty a Court has in the interpretation of statutory provision. “In the interpretation of the

foregoing, the Court has a duty to give it a plain, ordinary and literal meaning except where such

interpretation will lead to manifest absurdity. The duty of the Court is to interprete the language

of a statute in its grammatical meaning to convey the intention of the law makers. I.N.E.C. v. Ray

(2004) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 892) pg. 92. N.B.N. Ltd. v. Opeola (1994) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 319) pg. 126.

Akinfosile v. Ijose (1960) S.C.N.L.R. pg. 447. Macaulay v. R.Z.B. Austria (2003) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

852) pg. 282. P.D.P. v. I.N.E.C. (1999) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 626) pg. 200. Adewunmi v. A.- G., Ekiti

State (2001) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 751) pg. 474. Abubakar v. Yar’Adua (2008) 19 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1120)

pg. 1.” – Per Adekeye, J.S.C., in Jolasun v. Bamgboye Suit No. S.C. 8/2002; (2010) 18 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 1225) 285 at 313-314.

Duty of Court in hearing addresses of counsel. “The address of counsel is an essential part of a

party’s case. In Bernard Okoebor v. Police Council (2003) 5 S.C.N.J. 52; (2003) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

834) 444, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the Court to afford parties opportunity of

addressing it by way of explaining the essential issue, in favour of the appellant after close of case

of both sides. This Court has to consider whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred as a result

of the failure of the trial Judge to exercise that duty. I am of the view and I agree with the learned

appellant’s counsel that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in the circumstances of his case. This

is a charge that carries the capital punishment. There was need to allow counsel to file a reply to

address the points of law raised by the respondent’s address. There was also the need to allow

counsel adumbrate the favourable points in favour of the appellant.” – Per Owoade, J.C.A., in

Kalu v. State Suit No. CA/PH/475/2008; (2011) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1238) 429 at 456-457.

Duty of Court in interpretation of constitutional provisions. “Every legal document including

or the Constitution has a purpose without which it is meaningless. This purpose or ratio legit, is

made up of the objectives, the goals, the interests, the values, the policy and the function that by

law it is designed to actualize. It is the duty of the Judge to give the meaning of the words that best

realizes its purpose and intent and intendment.” – Per Musdapher, C.J.N., in Marwa v. Nyako Suit

No. S.C. 141/2011; (2012) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1296) 199 at 291.

Duty of Court in respect of interpretation of statutes. “I would like to anchor on what my

learned brother, Fabiyi, J.S.C. said in the lead judgment in First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Alhaji

Salmanu Maiwada in the unreported case of this Court in S.C.204/2002 of 25th May, 2012,

reported in (2013) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1348) 444 at 484 paras. E-F. He stated “I agree that a Judge

shouted be firm and pungent in the interpretation of the law but such should be short of a judgment