Justice

• Pages: 517-532

Access to Court Paras. 1001-1004

JUSTICE

(1) ACCESS TO COURT

1001. Right of access to Court.

“It must always be remembered that citizen’s accessibility to Courts is the hallmark

of civilized societies operating under the rule of law. Any country that shuts the door

of its Court against individuals who may wish to vent real or imagined grievances

against other individuals or against the state or its functionaries cannot be said to be

operating under the rule of law. Such a refusal is denial of justice. The adage is that

justice is to be denied to none; translated into latin maxim it is Justitia Nemini Negada

Est.” - Per Aderemi, J.C.A. in Ezenwa v. Ekong Suit No. CA/L/340/97; (1999) 11

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 625) 55 at 74.

(2) ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

1002. Achieving a balance between quick dispensation of justice and non-

denial of justice.

“I would like to refer to the case of Ceekay Traders Ltd. v. General Motors Co.

Ltd. (1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 222) 132 where Olatawura, J.S.C. said at page 162: -

“We must balance the need not to delay justice with an important requisite in the

administration of justice non-denial of justice. Delay of justice is bad but denial of

justice is worse and the denial inflicts pain, grief, suffering and untold hardship.” The

learned trial Judge in this matter was sacrificing the need for justice on the altar of

speed.” - Per Akpiroroh, J.C.A in Wakwah v Ossai Suit No. CA/PH/46/96; (2002)

2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 752) 548 at 563-564.

1003. Bench and Bar’s duty in efficient administration of justice.

“Before I put the final dot in this judgment, I am constrained to reflect the time it took

to get this case to this level. It is almost twenty years now since it was commenced

before a High Court, just one step lower to this Court. I think this kind of situation call

for genuine concern to the authorities whose responsibilities it is to lubricate the

wheel of administration of justice in this country, primarily the Bench and the Bar if

the roe expected of the institutions is to remain relevant and in line with expectations

of the members of the Society.” - Per Abdullahi, J.C.A. in Reynolds Const. Co. v.

R.B.B. Suit No. CA/E/76/89; (1993) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 297) 122 at 129.

1004. Certainty in the administration of justice.

“The theory of justice to which we adhere rests a priori on the premise that there

must be certainty and parties to the legal duel should be in a position to know where

they stand at a certain time. A system of law where Judges of the same degree i.e.

of co-ordinate jurisdiction make contradictory and inconsistent orders in respect of

the same subject matter involving the same parties i.e. each relying on his whims,

517

Paras. 1004-1007 Vol. 13: JUSTICE 518

caprices, prejudices and sometimes a vaunting ego, makes nonsense and mockery of

the law. The beauty or what I might describe as the romance of law is that just as

stare decisis exercises a restraining influence on our Courts, so too do discipline in

the Courts in dutifully adhering to normative order by which Courts of co-ordinate

jurisdiction do not sit on appeals on each other, attracts respect for the law. The

Courts being conservative in nature and rightly so look for precedents; and respect

orderliness inherent in a judicial hierarchy. To maintain discipline the Court must

perforce respect the decision of the Court of equal jurisdiction in the subject matter

and involving the same parties. To do other-wise is to let loose wild geese.” - Per

Pats-Acholonu, J.S.C. in Peters v. Ashamu Suit No. CA/L/50M/94; (1995) 4 N.W.L.R

(Pt. 388) 206 at 222.

1005. Court’s duty when it feels uneasy about the justice of its conclusion.

“When a Court feels uneasy about the justice of its conclusion it should pause to

examine the relevant law and facts more deeply before it accords finality to such

conclusions. Such deeper reflection in this case would no doubt have necessitated

such construction of the Act that would reflect the mischief at which the Act aimed,

which in this case, as the preamble showed, “was to make special penal provisions

with respect to acts subversive of the exchange control legislation in the country.” -

Per Ayoola, J.S.C. in Onwuchekwa v. N.D.I.C. Suit No. S.C. 98/2000; (2002) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 760) 371 at 392.

1006. Desirability of expeditious administration of justice.

“There is no doubt in my mind that there has been undue delay in the disposal of this

appeal. It is my view that this undue delayed exhausts patience, courage, and hope.

The due administration of justice frowns at delay justice. It is notorious fact that the

Courts below are not helped in the quick dispensation of justice when the Courts are

denied of the materials with which to produce records of appeal expeditiously. There

is a heavy congestion in the Court of Appeal. It is very unhealthy for appeals to lie in

the Court of Appeal for upwards of over five years before they are attended to.

Sometimes the delay is caused by counsel for the parties but many times the delay is

mainly due to the congestion in the Court of Appeal. The matter, in my opinion, needs

some urgent reappraisal.” - Per Kolawole J.C.A., in Anibi v Shotimehin Suit No.

CA/I/86/87; (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 282) 461 at 471.

1007. Duty of Court in the administration of justice.

“I must, however, place on record the ingenuous argument of Dr. Okafor, which led

to judgment being longer than it ought to be. The learned trial Judge also deserve

commendation in his handling of the entire proceedings, inspite of the fact (as he

observed) that (see page 69): - “This Court has been beset by abysmal lack of facili-

ties, particularly light, which is utterly in inadequate supply in its quarters and as such

I may not deal with the profundity I would wish, to my mind, the issue involved are

clear and straightforward.” As long as our judiciary must continue to smelt iron with-