OBODO V. OLOMU

• Pages: 824-840

824



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.

hibit P4 were not made when the letters of demand in Exhibits P10, P11 and P12

were written. They relate to a period much earlier as the letter themselves disclose.

Exhibit P4 was not therefore made because proceedings were anticipation of legal

proceedings -

Bearmans Ltd. v. Metropolitan Police District Receiver

(1961) 1

W.L.R. 694. At the time of the transactions there was no dispute to render antici-



5

pation of proceedings probable. It is however being naive to hold that proceed-

ings were not likely. In all commercial transactions litigation in always ultimately

likely and a possibility. If all statements and documents prepared in the course of

business or other transactions were to be excluded from proceedings in Court on

this ground, then a serious clog has been introduced into the wheel of legitimate



1C

transactions and the administration of justice.

In my opinion and for the reasons given above Exhibit P4 is admissible for the

purposes of this appeal, and the Court of Appeal was right in the view that it was

too late to complain.

I adopt the other reasons given by my learned brother Uwais, J.S.C. in his judg-

ment.

There will be no order as to cost.

BELGORE, J.S.C.:

I have read in advance the lead judgment of my learned

brother Uwais, J.S.C. with which I agree. I also dismiss the appeal but vary the



2C

judgment debt as made in the consequential order to the lead judgment. I also

make no order as to cost.

Appeal dismissed.

a

-

•

OBODO V. OLOMU

FORCADOS OVO OBODO

V

1.

STAFFORD OLOMU

2.

ROBERT OBOLOJE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

5th June, 1987

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 204/1985

3C

4C

Practice and Procedure - Address - Right to address must not be denied -

Denial of right may render proceedings null if miscarriage of justice occasioned

- Whether address must be oral - Address not directed to court alone -

party must not be blinded from his adversary's address - Importance of

address under s.258(1) of constitution - Right to address may be waived but

must be offered - Not proper to speculate on what address would be - Effect

of order for submission of written address.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the effect of the failure of a High Court Judge to invite counsel to address

the Court orally and hear the addresses after the conclusion of the evidence?

OBODO V. OLOMU



825

2. Whether it is the law that a trial Judge must ensure that the written addresses of

counsel appearing before him are exchanged on both sides.

FACTS:

The appellant sued the respondents in the Warri High Court claiming damages

5



for trespass and an injunction. Both sides called witnesses and closed their case.

The trial judge ordered parties to send written addresses to him and adjourned

the case for judgment. Only the defence counsel sent a written address to the

judge, no copy of it was served on the plaintiff's counsel. In delivering his judg-

ment on the 2nd of August, 1983, the trial judge reviewed the facts and dwelt at

10



length on the submissions contained in defence counsel's written address, which

submissions he agreed with and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff ap-

pealed to the Court of Appeal where he complained about the failure of the trial

court to hear oral addresses and the failure to serve him a copy of the written ad-

dress of the defence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the plaintiff

15



further appealed to the Supreme Court on the same complaints.

HELD:

1. When the right to address the court exists, a party must not be denied that right;

a denial may render the proceedings null if a miscarriage of justice is

occasioned.

20



2. Perhaps for the court's convenience such addresses may be in writing as the

rules of court are not clear on this point, but a party must not be denied of the

right to address by implication. Had the Court of Appeal adverted to the

principle that the address was not meant for the court alone but also for the

other side, it would have discovered a fundamental error in the trial judge's

25



approach. No date was given for the addresses to be submitted, no order was

made for service of the defendants' address on the plaintiff and when the plaintiff

was to file his reply address. The importance of addresses is shown by s.258(1)

of the 1979 constitution.

3. The trial judge was wrong in the manner he ordered for the written addresses

30



and in deciding the case virtually on the defence counsel's address. Addresses

form part of the case and failure to hear the address of one party however

overwhelming the evidence seems to be on one side, vitiates the trial.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

35



1.

Alhaji Ahmadu v. Alhaji Salawu

(1974) 11 S.C. 43, 49.

2.

Mogaji v. Odofin

(1978) 4 S.C. 91.

3.

Akhiwu v. Principal Lotteries Officer

(1972 1 All N.L.R. 229.

4.

Mohammed v. Kano

N.A. (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 424.

5.

Bronik Motors Limited & anor v. Wema Bank Limited

(1983) 6 S.C. 658

40



6.

Ukpe lbodo & ors v. Enarofia & ors

(1980) 5-7 S.C. 42, 52.

J.O.E. lgbinoba

for the Appellant.

Y.O.

Esombi

for the Respondents.

45



BELGORE, J.S.C.

(Delivering the Lead Judgment): After hearing all the evidence

by the parties in the trial Court, of Warri in the High Court of Bendel State, Eluaka

J., without being addressed by the counsel to the parties, wrote as follows:

"Court: Parties will send their address (sic) to me in writing;

Order: Adjourned 2nd August 1983 for judgment

50

(Sgd.) M.C. Eluaka

Judge

117183"