IGNATIUS ODINAKA & ANOR. V. FELIX NKANYICHUKWU MOGHALU.

• Pages: 624-635

624



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 1 N.S.C.C.

one can circumvent the strict application of the rules of court. Rules of court, as it

has always been said, are made to be obeyed.

The reluctance to consider an alternative course which appears more

cumbersome give the impression albeit untrue, that the outcome of such a

decision is based on technicality. Technicality in the administration of justice



5

shuts out justice. A litigant sent out of court without a hearing is denied

justice. A man denied justice on any ground much less a technical ground

grudges administration of justice. It is therefore better to have a case heard

and determined on merits than to leave the court with a shield of "victory"

obtained on mere technicalities.



10

Although this case is being sent back to be heard on its merits, it now

appears that the respondent had a pyrrhic victory. A court whose judgment is

subject to an appeal should resist the temptation not to deal with all issues

raised before it. There are many slips between the cup and the mouth. Until

the Supreme Court gives its judgment, and except where subject to constitu-

15

tional provision, it is doubtful if some litigants will be satisfied with the

judgment of the lower courts.

It is for these reasons and for the well articulated reasons in the judgment of

my learned brother

Akpata, J.S.C.

and which reasons I now respectively adopt as

mine that I allowed the appeal.



20

Appeal allowed.

25

IGNATIUS ODINAKA & ANOR. V. FELIX

NKANYICHUKWU MOGHALU.

30

1.

IGNATIUS ODINAKA

2.

ALEXANDER OKOYE



APPELLANTS

V.

FELIX NKANYICHUKWU MOGHALU



RESPONDENT

(carrying on business under

the name and style of Fenkachumo

Trading Company.)

APPEAL No. SC. 70/1988.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

0 LATAWU RA ,



J.S.C.

A KPATA ,



J.S.C.

10th April, 1992.

Appeals - Findings of fact by trial Judge - When interfered with by appellate courts.

Bailment - Negligence of bailee - Loss ofprofit - Presumption of negligence of a bailee who

fails to deliver the goods entrusted to him.

35

40

45

50