SODIPO V. LEMMINKAINEN OY & ANOR

• Pages: 1102-1129

1102



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

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

SODIPO V. LEMMINKAINEN OY & ANOR.



5

CHIEF HAROLD SODIPO

V

1.

LEMMINKAINEN OY

2.

RAKENNUS-RUOLA OY

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 149/1983

10

SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO,

BELLO,

OBASEKI,

ESO,

ANIAGOLU,

KARIBI-WHYTE,

OPUTA,

12th July, 1985

OF NIGERIA

C.J.N.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.0

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

15

20

Constitutional Law - Section 258(1) of the 1979 Constitution - Judgments Time

within which judgment must be delivered.

25

Interpretation - Construction of statutes - Section 258 (1) of the 1979 Constitution

- Meaning of "final addresses" therein appearing.

Jurisdiction - Courts - When a court may become fiinctus officii - Duties and

powers of courts where illegality is apparent in the pleadings or in evidence



30

- When otherwise.

ISSUES:

1.

When does the 3 months period for delivery of judgment at the conclusion of

a case stipulated in section 258(1) of the 1979 Constitution start to run when the



35

court had to be addressed more than once after such conclusion?

2.

What is the meaning of "final addresses" within the purview of section 258(1) of

the 1979 Constitution?

3.

When will a judge become

defuntus officio

within the meaning of s.258(1) of

the Constitution as to become divested of jurisdiction in relation to a case before



40

him, and whether as a rule, he has power to recall counsel for fresh addresses.

4a. What are the duties and powers of a court where in a case before it, it is apparent

from the evidence adduced, that the contract sought to be enforced is tainted

with illegality or is against public policy and none of the parties in the case has

raised the issue?



45

4b.What is the common feature or characteristic of cases of illegality in which trial

judges have been held entitled to act when parties fail to raise the issue in their

pleadings?

5.

Whether a judge is entitled to embark on an inquisitorial investigation, in search

of illegality in a case before him where none is ex

facie

apparent on the records



50

or evidence, and where none of the parties has raised the issue.

6.

Whether a judge has power to re-open a case after addresses in order to satisfy

himself as to an issue which is, in his view, necessary to the proper adjudication

of the case before him.

SODWO V. LENIMNKANEN OY & ANN.



1103

FACTS:

By a specially endorsed Writ the respondents claimed a sum of money from

the appellant in the High Court of Lagos. There being no defence to the claim

from the appellant, the respondent moved the court for leave to sign judgment.

5





The application was listed for hearing on 11th February, 1980 when arguments of

counsel for both sides were heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, ruling was

reserved till 17th March, 1980 but was not delivered till 27th March, 1980. After

delivering the ruling in which arguments of counsel were considered the learned

trial judge, on his own motion, raised the issue of a possible breach of the Foreign

10





Exchange Control Act and invited counsel to address him on the issue before con-

cluding his ruling. On 24th April 1980, counsel for the respondent addressed the

court while counsel for the appellant said he had nothing to say. The trial judge

then adjourned his ruling to 13th May, 1980 on which date he delivered his final

ruling in which he considered only that issue of the possible breach of the Act be-

15





fore allowing the respondents application. The appellant appealed to the Court

of Appeal and to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Judgment of the High

Court was a nullity as it was delivered more than three months after first address

of counsel on 11th February 1980, contrary to section 258(1) of the 1979 Constitu-

tion. The issue for determination on appeal therefore, was which day would the

20





court take as the date when final address was delivered before judgment - 11th

February, or 24th April.

HELD:

1.

When the Court had to be addressed more than once, the 3 months period

stipulated in section 258(1) of the 1979 Constitution starts to run where the trial

25





court still has the competence and the jurisdiction to take all necessary steps

that would lead to a just decision while still keeping within the statutory

requirement of section 258(1) of the 1979 Constitution. The request for further

addresses made on 17th March, 1980 was made

1

month and 16 days from

the date of the first addresses on 11th Febraury, 1980. It was therefore made

30





within the 3 months period allowed by section 258(1); because it was made

when the trial court still had jurisdiction to make any order or orders for the

effective adjudication of the dispute before it. Further, the address on the 24th

April, 1980, was an address on an entirely new issue raised

suo mote

by the

trial judge. It was a fresh matter which was not pleaded by the parties to the

35





case. The ruling after that further addresses, 19 days later, was well within the

three months period stipulated by section 258(1) of the Constitution.

2.

That another angle is to regard the proceedings from 11th February 1980 as

one continuous proceedings in which the parties addressed the court on 11th

February and addressed again on 24th April 1980. In the course of the trial of

40





a cavil action, issues will continue to arise on which the parties will necessarily

address the court for as many times as is necessary. The final address must,

therefore, be the last in the series, after which judgment is delivered there and

then, or is reserved for delivery of a future date in accordance with our law.

The use of the word "final addresses" in Section 258(1) presupposes earlier

45





address or addresses and the legislature must be deemed to have

contemplated the delivery of earlier address or addresses, leaving the one or

ones, under section 258(1) to be the final.

3.

That once a judge has reserved judgment after conclusion of evidence where

evidence was taken, and final addresses, he must deliver his judgment within

50





three months thereafter. If he does nothing till the three months are over, he

becomes

functus officii

and has no more jurisdiction to deliver judgment in the

case. Within the three months period, he is still seised with the case and can

exercise all the powers he has been given in respect of the case. One of those

powers is to recall counsel and parties for further argument. It will be a