Decisions of court of appeal

• Pages: 483-484

483

upheld.” – Per Odeyemi, J.C.A., in Dalfam v. Okaku Suit No. CA/A/39/2000;

(2001) 35 W.R.N. 43 at 69; (2001) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 735) 203 at 243.

892. When Appeal Court will reverse decision of a lower Court.

“A decision of a lower Court on any point will be reverse by appellate Court where

error of law committed by the lower Court is fatal because it has occasioned a

substantial miscarriage of justice. See Udeze v. Chidebe. (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

125) 141.” - Per Adio, J.S.C., in U.B.N. v. Ozigi Suit No. S.C.159/1991; (1994) 3

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 333) 385 at 402.

893. When appellate Court can set aside decision of lower Court.

“The appellant’s counsel had raised the issue that the Tribunal raised the issue of

joinder suo motu and that the counsel were not invited to address the Court on this

point. I must say that the Court can set aside the decision of a lower Court if such a

decision has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, but in the instant case, the decision

in question did not occasion any miscarriage of justice and if the parties had addressed

the Tribunal on the issues nothing different would have resulted as the appellant had

failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph 48(1) of Schedule 5 to the, Decree.”

- Per Opene, J.C.A., in Onoyom v. Egari Suit No. CA/C/EPA/37/99; (1999) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 603) 416 at 424.

(50) DECISIONS OF COURT OF APPEAL

894. Bindingness on Court of Appeal of its previous decision.

(1) “It is hoped that the higher Court of the land will in no distant future, put the

matter to rest.” I agree with my learned brother that the issue is not only intriguing

but challenging. The law remains as it is until the Supreme Court intervenes.

Onagoruwa’s case (supra) has not changed the position. Be that as it may, the

appellant/applicant fails to satisfy any of the two conditions for granting prayers 1 –

3 which forms the 1st principal issue in this application. In the final analysis, the

appellant/applicant has failed to satisfy any of the two conditions for ranting prayers

l 3 which form the 1st principal issue in this application.” – Per Okunola, J.C.A., in

Ajisefini v. D.P.P. Suit No. CA/I/M.67/97; (1998) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 562) 447 at 453.

(2) “The fact that another panel of the Court thought differently is no reason for it to

purportedly vary the earlier Order by resorting to Order 5 rule 3.That rule provides:

- “The Court shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it save to

correct any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission,

or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.” -

Per Ogundare, J.S.C., in Usman v. Umaru Suit No. S.C.61/1989; (1992) 7 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 255) 377at 399.

479 Decisions of Court of appeal Paras. 891-894