OKONJO V. ODJE & ORS.

• Pages: 1276-1279

1276



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.

OKONJO V. ODJE & ORS.

5

DR. ISAAC MADUBJOGO OKONJO



APPELLANT

V

DR. MUDIAGA ODJE & ORS.



RESPONDENTS



10

SUIT NO. SC 5

4

/

1

985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.0

UWAIS,



J.S.0



15

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.0

KAWU,



J.S.C.

29th October, 1985

Appeals (Civil) - To Court of Appeal - Procedure at hearing - Duty to determine



20

appeal on merits and not on mere technicalities - Court wrongly refusing

application for leave to amend notice of appeal to include relief sought and

then dismissing appeal on ground that the notice defective - Appeal remitted

for amendment of notice and hearing on merits.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the Court of Appeal has power to go against a decision of the Supreme

Court and dismiss an appeal on mere technicalities without hearing it on the

merits.

2.

Whether an appellant can be granted leave to amend his notice of appeal to



30

include the relief sought which has been inadvertently left out.

FACTS:

The appellant sought leave to amend his Notice of Appeal to include the relief

sought, which was inadvertently left out. The Court of Appeal refused the appel-

lant's motion, which was filed 6 months before the appeal was due for argument.



35

During the hearing of the motion decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to

not allowing technicalities to interfere with the merits of cases were brought to the

notice of the Court of Appeal but were ignored.

The appellant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court, as the ap-

peal was dismissed.



40

HELD:

1.

The stance taken by the Court of Appeal was an unnecessary adherance to

techincalities. This court has in numerous decisions stated that it is not

concerned with technicalities but with doing substantial justice between the

parties.



45

2.

In the hierarchy of the court in this country as in any other free common law

countries one Thing in clear, that the lower court is still bound by the decision

of the higher court.

3.

The practice is and always has been that a litigant is entitled to have any error

corrected in the proceedings, if there is no prejudice to the other party. It has



50

not been contended here that the relief claimed which is a formal part of a notice

of appeal will prejudice the respondents. No issue is settled by technically

avoiding the issues. Justice by technicality is no justice.