EMENDIMAYA & ORS. V. OKORJI & ORS

• Pages: 747-755

EMENDIMAYA & ORS. V. OKORJI & ORS.



747

EMENDIMAYA & ORS. V. OKORJI & ORS.

5

EZEKIEL EMENDIMAYA & ORS.

V

10 OKPARA OKORJI & ORS.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 150/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

.

BELLO,

ESO,

15



ANIAGOLU,

KAZEEM,

KAWU,

29th May, 1987

C.J.N.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

20

Appeal - Attitude of appellate court wizen protracted nature of healing prevents

trial court from making any specific findings on crucial issues - Effect of

long interval between conclusion of evidence and final addresses and deliver)

,

of judgment - Attitude of appellate court - • Constitutional law - Whether

S.258(1) of 1979 constitution affects suits in which final addresses were

25



delivered before 1st October, 1979.

ISSUE:

1. What attitude will an appellate court adopt when the protracted nature of the

hearing of a case and the long delay between the conclusion of the hearing

30





and the delivery of judgment prevented the trial court from making any specific

findings of facts on crucial issues.

FACTS:

Trial commenced in an action for declaration of title brought by the appellants

in the Rivers State High Court, Ahoada Judicial Division on 29/

3

/

7

6 and several

35





adjournments were had until 20/8/7El. Then the trial Judge who was transferred to

the Port Harcourt Judicial Division, continued the hearing in Port Harcourt from

19/10/76 until 20/7/78 when the defendants/respondents closed their case. Sev-

eral adjournments were had throughout the period, while witnesses for both par-

ties testified on diverse adjourned dates throughout this period. Addresses were

40





finally taken on 2/11/78 and the case was adjourned to 3/11/78 for judgment which

was not delivered until 15/11/79 - more than one year after the close of the case.

The trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, and the defendants ap-

pealed to the Court of Appeal complaining,

inter-a/ia,

that the protracted nature of

the hearing was such that the trial Judge could not avail himself of the advantage

45





of seeing the witnesses as the judgment dealt with facts mainly. The court agreed

with the defendants and allowed the appeal, ordering a retrial of the case. The

plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:

1. As final addresses were delivered before the 1979 Constitution came into effect

50





on 1st October, 1979 the provisions of S.258(1) of the Constitution providing

for a mandatory period of three months between final addresses and judgment

are inapplicable in this appeal.