Justice

• Pages: 1038-1125

1038

JUSTICE.

ACCESS TO COURT.

Duty on Court to uphold citizen’s right of access to Court. “It must always be remembered

that citizen’s accessibility to Courts is the hall-mark of civilized societies operating under the

rule of law, Nigeria, I believe is not an exception. A society that shuts the doors of its Courts

of justice against individuals who may wish to vent real or even imagined grievances against

other individuals or against the State or its functionaries cannot be said to be operating under

the rule of law. And perhaps I should add that one of the basic principles of the rule of law is

that a person who feels aggrieved by an act or the decision of an individual or corporate body,

or government and its functionaries should have its complaints investigated and justice

dispensed.” – Per Aderemi, J.C.A., in Mangraht v. Oduba Suit No. CA/L/406/2002; (2004) 4

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 863) 279 at 287.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Can one party be more important than the other party?“The adversary system of justice

in Nigeria admits of the concept that no one party is more important than the other.” – Per

Pemu, J.C.A., in Al-Mustapha v. StateSuit No. CA/L/469A/2012; (2013) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1383) 350 at 415.

Does double standard have any place in administration of justice?“In its judgment, the

lower Court found that the act of sexual intercourse was neither corroborated nor witnessed by

at least two independent witnesses as required by law and accordingly found the first charge

under section 79 of the Armed Forces Decree of 1993 not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However in the 2nd count, the same Court, which found that the act of sexual intercourse had

not been established turned around and held that the act of sexual intercourse had been

established in all its ramification. This is a double standard which has no place in administration

of justice be it criminal or civil. Having acquitted the appellant of the first count, the General

Court Martial was bound to discharge and acquit him on the 2nd count also. The failure of the

Court to do that has led to travesty of justice which this Court cannot allow.” – Per Salami,

J.C.A., in Ofuani v. Nigerian Navy Suit No. CA/L/336M/2001 (2007) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt.1037)

470 at 486.

Duty on citizens not to usurp functions of law enforcement agents and the Courts. “It

could very well have been mere rumours and it could have been false allegations, but he and

his cohorts could not wait to confirm the veracity of the allegation before taking the law into

their hands and sending the deceased to his early grave. On the other hand, even if the allegation

was confirmed to be true was it in their place to pass judgment on the deceased and execute

him there and then the way they did? Definitelynot. That is why we have law enforcement

agents, and the Courts and their functions cannot or will not be allowed to be usurped by

individuals. That is also why we have laws and the persons who operate the law. A society,

that does not reckon with these authorities and abide by the laws of the land is bereft of sanity,

for the moment such acts are condoned then the consequence is chaos and jungle co-existence.”

1039

– Per Mukhtar, J.S.C., in Annabi v. State Suit No. S.C. 243/2004; (2008) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1103) 179 at 192.

Duty on counsel and Court to aid speedy administration of justice. (1)“To save time and

costs, and to enhance the dwindling fortunes and image of the Judiciary and justice delivery

system in Nigeria, it is no longer fashionable or advisable for parties to take issues in a suit

piecemeal. It is in the overall best interest oflitigants, their learned counsel and the Court that

all contentious issues involving highly conflicting evidence from the contending parties, as in

this case be resolved with the mainissues in the substantial suit. This will obviate the burden

on the Court to resolve on issue two times in one and same suit.” – Per Adumein, J.C.A., in

Gbadehan v. Kiladejo Suit No. CA/B/390/2008; (2012) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1326) 392 at 423.(2)

“Justice is like an imaginary scale. All that the Judge does is to put all the facts and evidence

on the appropriate scale pans to see on which side the scale pans twist. To do that the Judge

must have materials to work with see Imana v. Robinson(1979) 3 & 4 S.C. 1” – PerAlagoa,

J.C.A., in WAEC v. Oshionebo Suit No. CA/B/61/2003; (2006) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 994) 258 at

276. (3)It must be pointed out that in its quest to do justice, the Court should at all times

endeavour to find a loophole if any to do justice to all manner of men (and not to be blinded

by a procedure that would asphyxiate and choke justice and which would not now stand the

test of time) to wit, justice based on a living and dynamic law.” – PerPats-Acholonu, J.C.A.,

in Nwolisah v. Nwabufor Suit No. CA/E/180/2001; (2004) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 879) 507 at 526 -

527.

Duty on Court not to adhere to technicalities at the expense of justice.“In

unanimously allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the duty of the Court

is to decide the rights of the party and not punish them for errors, hence where the

defendant has a good defence and is willing and ready to defend the action, it is clearly

inequitable to shut him out by technical rules relating to the form in which the defence

has been brought; that the rules are designed to assist the parties in putting forward

their case before the Court; and they are not intended to deny parties of the opportunity

of presenting their case thereby resulting in injustice.” –PerAugie, J.C.A., in

Omabuwa v. OwhofatshoSuit No. CA/B/139/95; (2006) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 972) 40 at

61.

Duty on Court not to aid party to hinder administration of justice in a case. (1)“Where a

party is seen to be indulging in a method that is antithetical to due administration of justice, the

Court should distance itself from it.” – PerPats-Acholonu, J.S.C., in Duke v. Akpabuyo L.G.

Suit No. S.C. 128/2001; (2005) 19 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 959) 130 at 144. (2)“In the case of Duke v.

Akpabuyo(supra) the apex Court counseled that: - “When a party to a suit is seen to be

indulging in a method that is antithetical to due administration of justice the Court should

distance itself from the party.” (P. 144 paragraph D).” – Per Dongban-Mensem, J.C.A., in

Virgin Tech. Ltd. v. Mohammed Suit No. CA/L/170/2004; (2009) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1151) 136

at 154.

Duty on Judges in an adversarial system of justice. “The delicate role of a Judge in our

adversarial system of justice demands that he must not only be impartial but must also be seen

to be impartial at all times. A Judge cannot and in fact should not play the role of prosecution

1040

and of a Judge at the same time. The duty of impartiality of a Judge includes the duty to hold

even balance between the parties. See Damina v. State (1995) 8N.W.L.R. (Pt. 415) 513; Udo

v. State (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 82) 316 and Fawehinmi v. Akilu (No. 1) (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

67) 797.” – Per Sanusi, J.C.A., in Igbeke v. Emordi Suit No. CA/E/EPT/04/2009; (2010) 11

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1204) 1 at 55.

Duty on trial Judge to be impartial and not descend to the arena of dispute. “It is not the

duty of a Judge to rectify a mistake made by any of the parties before him. His duty is that of

an impartial arbiter and not to descend into the arena of dispute. The delicate role played by a

Judge in our adversarial system of justice demands that he must not only be impartial but must

be seen to be impartial at all time. The Judge cannot play the role of prosecution and a Judge

at the same time. The duty of impartiality of a Judge includes the duty to hold even balance

between the parties. See Damina v. State (1995) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt.415) 513; Udov. State (1988)

3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.82) 316 and Fawehinmi v. Akilu(1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.67) 797.” – PerR.D.

Muhammad, J.C.A., in Abenga v. B.S.J.S.C., Suit No. CA/J/97/2002; (2006) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1000) 610 at 621.

Essence of adjudication.“Such cases as per Chime v. Chime(2001) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 701) 527

has clearly advocated shifting away from the narrow view to justice as has been the case in

earlier decisions of Courts. See Okegbe & Ors. v. Chikere & Ors. reported as Chikere v.

Okegbe (2000) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 681) 274 (supra). However, the Court’s recent approach has

been premised on this Court’s attitude in doing substantial justice which should be the whole

essence of any adjudication by the Courts.” – Per Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C., in Adedayo v.

P.D.P. Suit No. S.C. 261/2012; (2013) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1382) 1 at 61.

Essence of administration of Justice.“The essence of the administration of justice, it must

be emphasised, is to make access to justice as quickly and as cheap as possible.” – Per Onu,

J.S.C., in Elabanjo v. DawoduSuit No. S.C.386/2001; (2006) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1001) 76 at

127.

Essential attribute of administration of justice. (1) “It is an essential attribute of the

administration of justice that justice must not only be done, it must be manifestly seen to be

done. Hewart C/J stated this principle in a very lucid way when in R v. Sussex Justices Ex Parte

Macarthy(1924) 1 K.B. 256, he reasoned at page 259 thus: “It is not merely of some

importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should

manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The above dictum was quoted with approval

by the Supreme Court in Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi

(1985) 7 S.C. 178; (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 7) 300.” – PerAderemi, J.C.A., in Okomu Oil Palm

Ltd. v. OkpameSuit No. CA/B/4/2001; (2007) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1020) 71 at 88. (2) “Over the

years, Courts have put a stamp of permanent authority in the saying that it is an essential

attribute of the administration of justice, that justice must not only be done, but it must

manifestly seen to be done. What I have just said here was lucidly put by Hewart, C.J., in R. v.

Sussex Justices Ex Parte Marcathy (1924) 1 K.B. 256 when at page 259 he reasoned: “….It is

not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only

be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The above time-honoured