Decisions of trial courts based on erroneous premises

• Pages: 484-485

484

(3) “It is now well settled that under the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court below

as an intermediate Court of Appeal between the Court below it and this Court as the

final appellant Court, is bound by its own decision except in circumstances specified

in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (1944) 2 All E.R. 293, 300, that is (a) the

Court of Appeal is entitled to decide which of the two conflicting decisions of its own

it will follow; (b) it will refuse to follow its own decision which, though not expressly

overruled, cannot in its opinion stand with a decision of this Court; and (c), it is not

bound to follow a decision of its own if its satisfied that decision was given per

incuriam – See Osumanu v. Amadu, (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 437; Davis v. Johnson

(1978) 1All E.R 1132. The Court of Appeal (Jos Division) in CA/J32/85 remitted the

defendant’s appeal in the matter on hand to the High Court of Plateau State for

adjudication. It is not open to the Court of Appeal to again make another order

inconsistent with its earlier order unless it can be shown that any of the above three

exceptions applies. And that seems not to be the case here. I am aware that the

Court below appears to be aware of the fact that it could not vary its earlier order.”

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

(Pt. 255) 377 at 398.

(51) DECISIONS OF TRIAL COURTS BASED ON ERRONEOUS

PREMISES

895. Appellate Court’s attitude to decisions of trial Courts based on

erroneous premises.

“One is obviously in no doubt that both parties as well as the trial Court fully addressed

the issue of the “dishonor and subsequent loss of the five cheques” respectively in

the parties’ pleadings and in the judgment of the trial Court. Okezie, J.C.A., was

therefore in grave error to have reached the decision, inter alia, to set aside the

judgment of the trial Judge on the premises that the appellant at the trial Court failed

to establish in its pleadings and by evidence that the five cheques paid in by the

respondent were in fact dishonored. His decision based on these erroneous premises

is a matter that goes to the root of the controversy between the parties and an

appellate Court cannot allow it to stand.” - Per Achike, J.S.C., in B.O.N. v. Yau Suit

No. S.C.250/93; (2001) 29 W.R.N. 1 at 22 - 23.

896. Not every mistake or error in a judgment will result in an appeal being

allowed.

“It is not every mistake or error in a judgment that will result in the appeal being

allowed. It is only when the error is substantial in that it has occasioned a miscarriage

of justice that an appeal Court is bound to interfere. See: Onajobi v. Olanipekun

(1985) 4 S.C. (Pt. 2) 156 at 163; Oje v. Babalola (1991) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 185) 6267

at 282; Azuekonma Ike v. Ugboaja (1993) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 301) 539 at 556;

Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 242) 386 at 400 etc. The alleged errors

Paras. 894-896 480