.
hbriefs heading animation Search for cases summary on Hbriefs like hbriefs on facebook follow hbriefs on twitter

BOOK: First 2-Years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons - visit website

JUMP TO CONTENT


The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
Bank: Zenith Bank.
Name: Branham Paul Chima.
Account No.: 2178756839.


Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

place my advert

place advert here
Go to Crowdfire

JURISTS QUOTES - pg. 3

Below are notable quotes from Nigerian Jurists (Judges and Justices of the High Courts, Court of Appeal, the and Supreme Court).


  1. There is that absence of mutuality which is a prerequisite condition in an action for specific performance, there must be a valid contract between the parties before an order for specific performance can be claimed. Specific performance is an equitable remedy based on the discretion of the Court, and it is generally ordered where "damages will be inadequate to meet the justice of the case": Beswick v. Beswick (1968) A.C. 58-88. Mutuality must be available to either party at the time of the contract. - Olajide Olatawura, JSC. Lagos State Development and Property Corporation & Anor. v. Nigerian Land And Sea Foods Ltd (1992)
  2. I agree. What is required is the probative value ascribed to the evidence of a witness. Once there is no contrary evidence or if the evidence is not challenged in cross-examination a Court can in fact act on it. - Olajide Olatawura, JSC. Lagos State Development and Property Corporation & Anor. v. Nigerian Land And Sea Foods Ltd (1992)
  3. Counsel must appreciate that it is in the interest of their Clients and the interest of justice for them to appear in Court to argue their appeals as the Court may wish to have some explanations about the submissions made and issues raised in their briefs. If the absence of counsel who had been duly notified of the date of judgment of Court is regarded as an act of disrespect to the Court (see Order 8 rule 14(2) of the Supreme Court Rules) then the absence of a counsel who was duly notified of a further address appears to me a calculated act of disrespect which borders on misconduct. A counsel who is unable to attend the Court owes it a duty to arrange for another counsel to hold his brief. It is discourteous and impolite for a counsel to turn down the invitation of this Court to address it further on any issue. If counsel appreciates he is first and foremost an officer of the Court, his duty as an officer is to show utmost respect and not treat the process of Court with levity. - Olajide Olatawura, JSC. Lagos State Development and Property Corporation & Anor. v. Nigerian Land And Sea Foods Ltd (1992)
  4. Was it not Lord Eldon LC who said in a passage that "truth is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question"?: see ex parte Lloyd. - Lord Denning, Jones v. National Coal Board (1957)
  5. It is all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round her eyes. Should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth: and the less dust there is about the better. - Lord Denning, Jones v. National Coal Board (1957)
  6. Let the advocates one after the other put the weights into the scales - the "nicely calculated less or more" - but the judge at the end decides which way the balance tilts, be it ever so slightly. - Lord Denning, Jones v. National Coal Board (1957)
  7. And it is for the advocate to state his case as fairly and strongly as he can, without undue interruption, lest the sequence of his argument be lost. - Lord Denning, Jones v. National Coal Board (1957)
  8. Lord Chancellor Bacon spoke right when he said that: "Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over-speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal." - Lord Denning, Jones v. National Coal Board (1957)
  9. "In construing any Act of Parliament we are seeking the intention of Parliament and it is quite true that we must deduce that intention from the words of the Act. If the words of the Act are only capable of one meaning we must give them that meaning no matter how they got there. But if they are capable of having more than one meaning we are, in my view, well entitled to see how they got there. For purely practical reasons we do not permit debates in either House to be cited: it would add greatly to the time and expense involved in preparing cases involving the construction of a statute if counsel were expected to read all the debates in Hansard, and it would often be impracticable for counsel to get access to at least the older reports of debates in Select Committees of the House of Commons, moreover, in a very large proportion of cases such a search, even if practicable, would throw no light on the question before the court." - Lord Reid. Beswick v. Beswick (1968)
  10. In Adeosun v. Babalola (1972) 5 Sc. 292 this Court held that it is improper for a court to give a decision on a point not argued before it. As a general rule this Court has always regarded with disfavour the practice of a court giving a decision on a point not argued before it. - [Referenced in: University Of Calabar v. Dr. Okon J. Essien (1996)]
  11. Obazke Ogiamien & Anor. v. Ohahon Ogiamien (1967) NMLR, 245 this Court said at page 248 and 249: "This Court has pointed out on several occasions that it is wrong for a Judge to give a decision on a point which opportunity was not afforded counsel to argue at the hearing and particularly a point which throughout the hearing was not raised." - [Referenced in: University Of Calabar v. Dr. Okon J. Essien (1996)]
  12. Lahan v. Lajoyetan (1972) 6 SC. 190, at page 200, Sowemimo, J.S.C (as he then was) delivering the judgment of this Court also observed: "We regret we cannot but repeat, that a procedure whereby a Court of Appeal takes up a point before parties or their counsel are heard and decides the issue is most inappropriate and irregular. We have often in the past drawn attention to the impropriety of dealing with an appeal in this way and it is our hope that this practice will be discontinued." - [Referenced in: University Of Calabar v. Dr. Okon J. Essien (1996)]
  13. However, where the point raised, for the first time in this court arose only from the judgment of the Court of Appeal as herein, the appellant is entitled to argue the point without leave of this court. This is because it could not have been argued in the court below, the point having not been raised at that stage. - Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC. Director of State Security Service & Anor. V. Olisa Agbakoba (1999)
  14. "A man should keep his words. All the more so when promise is not a bare promise but is made with the intention that the other party should act upon it." - Lord Denning
  15. Tellat Sule v. Nigerian Cotton Board (1985) 6 S.C. 62; (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) 17 at 38 the law was restated that disobedience of an employer's lawful order and/or insubordination by an employee is an act of misconduct which may justifiably attract the penalty of summary dismissal, termination or compulsory retirement of the employee concerned.
  16. Fortunately, however, all is not lost, as this court is in as good a position as the trial Court in making its own findings, where such findings are not based on the demeanor of witnesses or are inferences from other findings properly made - see Oyedeji v. Akinyele (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 755) 586; Sokwo v. Kpongbo (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 803) 111, & Jiwul v. Dimlong (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 154. - Amina Adamu Augie, JCA. Emmanuel Omozeghian v. Chief J. J. Adjarho & Anor (2005)
  17. In my view, a counsel worth his salt should not be seen or heard whipping up tribal sentiments on behalf of his client. It will not and does not speak well of his practice and appellation as a learned gentleman. - Amina Adamu Augie, JCA. Emmanuel Omozeghian v. Chief J. J. Adjarho & Anor (2005)
  18. While it is fashionable in recent times for some appellants to file reply briefs in appeals, one must not lose sight of the position of the law regarding the purpose and when there is need for the filing of a reply brief. A reply brief is not for the purpose of re-arguing an appeal by an appellant or to emphasis a point that has already been made in the appellant's brief of argument. It is to respond to new issues or arguments raised by a respondent in his brief of argument. - Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe, JCA. Aina Modupe Jeje v. Enterprise Bank Limited & Ors (2015)
  19. Counter-Claim is a claim for relief asserted against an opposing party after an original claim has been made; that is, a defendant's claim in opposition to or as a set-off against the plaintiff's claim. It is not only a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same proceedings but it is regarded as an independent and separate action in which the defendant/counter claimant is in opposition of the plaintiff and therefore has the burden of proving the counter claim to be entitled to judgment thereon. - Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe, JCA. Aina Modupe Jeje v. Enterprise Bank Limited & Ors (2015)
  20. Texaco Panama Incorporation v. SPPC (Nig) Ltd (2002) FWLR (Pt. 96) 579 SC. In the said case, Mohammed, JSC, stated that: "A statute of limitation is one which provides that no Court shall entertain proceedings for the enforcement of certain right if such proceedings were set on foot after the lapse of a definite period of time. A cause of action is statute barred if it is brought beyond the period laid down by the Statute within which such action must be filed in Court."
  21. In the case of Omokuwajo v. F.R.N. (2013) 9 NWLR (pt.1359) 300 at 332, his Lordship, Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., held inter alia that: "The need to give the parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu would not be necessary if:
    (a) the issue relates to the courts own jurisdiction.
    (b) both parties are/were not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case. That is to say where by virtue of statutory provision the Judge is expected to take judicial notice. See Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
    (c) when on the face of the record serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evident."

  22. Get that your business, idea, or work available to the public. HCB gets sufficient amount of visits daily. Utilise this golden opportunity to make your product(s) available to the public domain by advertising on this website. If you are interested in advertising on this platform, click "place my advert".

    place my advert

  23. Terab vs. Lawan & Ors. (supra) page 590 the Court of Appeal stated that thus: "I agree that the correct view of the law is that a party relying on documents in proof of his case must specifically relate each of such documents to that part of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered. The court cannot assume the duty of tying each of a bundle of documentary exhibits to specific aspect of the case for a party when the party has not himself done so. The foundation of the principle is that it is an infraction of fair hearing for the court to do in the recess of its chambers what a party has not himself done in advancement of his case in the open court."
  24. I would wish to state that nothing I have said can or ought to be taken as condoning the wanton destruction of property, arson etc. perpetrated by whoever took part in those unfortunate events. In the interest of continued development of higher education in this country, it is necessary that the two sides in the University Community - i.e. staff and students should show restraint in dealing with problems which must inevitably arise. Students must channel their grievances through established and sometimes well tested institutions set up for the purpose. University authorities in imposing disciplinary measures must of necessity do so in accordance with the laws of the land. I must repeat the views I expressed in Laoye's case (supra) in which I lamented the tendency of University authorities to settle in the campus matters which properly belong to the domain of the regular courts. Disciplinary measures ought to be imposed with firmness but where possible, particularly in cases of less serious misconduct, with compassion and understanding. - Nnamani, JSC. Mr Yesufu Amuda Garba & Ors v. The University Of Maiduguri (1986)
  25. Lindley. M.R. was right when he emphasized:- "I know of no duty of the Court which it is more important to observe, and no powers of the Court which it is more important to enforce, than its power of keeping public officials and public bodies within their rights. The moment public bodies exceed their rights they do so to the injury and oppression of private individuals, and those persons arc entitled to be protected from injury arising from such operations of public bodies,'" Roberts v. Gwyrfai District Council (1899) L.R.2 Ch.D. 614.
  26. Attorney-General Bendel State v. U.B.A. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 37) 547, where it was held that "a document tendered in court is the best proof of its content and no oral evidence will be allowed to discredit or contradict such document."
  27. Jiaza v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.610) 182 at 197 where the apex court held per Ogundare JSC that "extrinsic evidence is not admissible evidence in proof of title to land."
  28. Makwe v. Nwukor (2001) FWLR (Pt.63) 1 at 14, this court stated as follows: "The fact that a Person who is a stranger to the consideration of a contract stands in such near relationship to the party from whom the consideration proceeds that he may be considered a party to the consideration does not entitle him to sue or be sued on the contract".
  29. Salami v. Savannah Bank Nig. Ltd (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 130) 106, Sulu-Gambari J.C.A. referring to the application of the Illiterates Protection Law said, and I agree. "My conclusion from the review of the above cases is that while the writer or preparer of a document signed by an illiterate cannot take advantage under it unless the provisions of the Illiterates Protection Law are strictly complied with, where the document creates legal rights between the illiterate and the third person other than the writer or the preparer of the document, not only is the document admissible but also other pieces of evidence may be adduced or introduced to prove what happened at the time the document was prepared and signed."
  30. An "illiterate person" has been defined in the case of Ntiashagho v. Amodu (1959) WRNLR 273 as "a person who is unable to read with understanding and to express his thoughts by writing, in the language used in the document made or prepared on his behalf."
  31. It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. The reverse is equally disturbing. Justice rushed is a travesty of justice and a threat to the fabric that binds civilized society together. - Ngwuta, J.S.C. Danladi v. Dangiri (2014)
  32. Impeachment of elected politicians is a very serious matter and should not be conducted as a matter of course. The purpose is to set aside the will of the electorate as expressed at the polls. It has implication for the impeached as well as the electorate who bestowed the mandate on him. Whether it takes one day or the three months prescribed by law, the rules of due process must be strictly followed. If the matter is left at the whims and caprices of politicians and their panels, a State or even the entire country could be reduced to the status of a banana republic. The procedure for impeachment and removal must be guarded jealously by the Courts. - Ngwuta, J.S.C. Danladi v. Dangiri (2014)
  33. In the case of Nwaeze v. The State (1996) 2 SCNJ page 42 it was held inter alia: "where accused person is the person with whom the deceased was last with or seen with alive the implication of or necessary inference to be drawn from the fact is that the accused murdered the deceased".
  34. In A. M. Akinloye and Another vs Bello Eyiyola and Others (1968) N. M.L. R. 92 Coker J. S.C. delivering the judgment of the Court stated at p.95 - where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts it is not the business of a court of appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court.
  35. OGUNLAJA & ORS v. ALIMI & ORS (2017): "It is trite law that a preamble does not prevail over the clear words used in the operative part of an enactment. It is only where the words in an enactment are obscure or indefinite that resort may had to a preamble to clarify any ambiguity in the words used in the enacting part. The preamble definitely does not control the plain words of the enactment."
  36. INEC & ORS. v. HABUHASHIDU & ORS. (2008) LPELR-4310(CA): "The Court is bound to apply common sense in the construction of statute."
  37. MBA v. MBA (2018) LPELR-44295(SC): "Where facts and circumstances are presented to the Court from which the Court exercises its discretion, it should be guided by law, justice and common sense."
  38. Omana Uzoyare v. The State (1984) 10 SC 157: "motive in law is not necessarily an essential ingredient in proof of murder, as the motive maybe safely anchored in the mind of the accused person. In proving murder the court looks at what the accused actually does".
  39. The influence which this Court should uphold and support is that which draws governance nearer to the people, which makes available to children, qualitative and functional education and ensures that Government resources and authority are used to give human dignity to the people of Nigeria. - Monica, JCA. Asheik v. Borno State Government (2007)
  40. It is unfortunate that the Plaintiff in conducting negotiations in a matter involving such a heavy sum of money as indicated by the evidence in this case acted without the assistance of a lawyer. It will appear that the Plaintiff at all stages of the negotiations for the lease with which we are concerned in this appeal acted for it sell (sic). It is doubtful that it ever sought, let alone obtained, the advice of a legal practitioner in the matter. Perhaps if it had done the latter, it would have been warned of the risk of meeting demand after demand from the Defendant in the absence of a concluded agreement for a lease. It turned out that the Plaintiff unwittingly took this risk which eventually materialised, as this judgment has shown, with the Plaintiff incurring losses for which the Defendant cannot be made legally liable. The stage at which the negotiations for an agreement for a lease had reached in this case raised high hopes in the Plaintiff that a concluded agreement would finally be arrived at. That one was not reached is not because of any default on the part of the Plaintiff. In fact it was when all of the objections raised by the Defendant had been disposed of by the Plaintiff at some considerable cost that the Defendant called off the negotiations. The law says the Defendant can do so with impunity. But I do not think it will be too much to expect if the Defendant having regard to all the circumstances of this case decided to absorb ex gratia some of the losses which the Plaintiff had undoubtedly suffered in the transactions. - AGBAJE, J.S.C. UBA v. Tejumola (1988)
  41. It is the duty of the court to decide the real intention of persons charged on the facts of each particular case. - Ademola, CJN. DPP v. Chike Obi (1961)
  42. In the case of Ogbu v Orum 127, Obaseki J.S.C. (as he then was) applied the rule when he stated that "where briefs have been filed, the absence of the parties or their counsel does not attract any sanction of the Court and the appeal will be treated as having been duly argued and will be considered as such for purposes of the judgment"
  43. As regards implied repeal of statutes generally, it is now well settled that the Courts tend to lean against accepting an implied repeal of any law. The rationale of this attitude by the Courts is of course that if it is the intention of Parliament (or any legislature) to repeal an existing law it should be so stated by express words. - Nnamani, JSC. Kaduna v. Kagoma (1982)
  44. Idigbe J.S.C. in Rabiu v. The State (Supra) at P. 195 is apt: "Where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense the court should always lean where the justice of the case so demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the content or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out its object and purpose".
  45. May I also state that although an appeal Court or any other Court is entitled in its discretion, to take points suo motu if it deems fit to do so in the interest of justice, that discretion must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances only. Where the points are so taken, the parties must be given opportunity to address the Court before a decision on the point can be made. This is a matter of duty and a fulfillment of the constitutional requirement of fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Failure to observe this admonition may lead to such a decision being set aside on appeal. - Inyang Okoro, J.S.C. Akeredolu v. Abraham (2018)
  46. It is trite that legal principles established in decided authorities are not to be applied across board and in all matters without regard to the facts and issues submitted for adjudication in a particular case. - Inyang Okoro, J.S.C. Akeredolu v. Abraham (2018)
  47. "One cliche or aphorism has always worried me in the profession, and it is that in crossexamination the sky is the limit. Counsel love it. It is almost a song in the judicial process. Apart from the fact that the judicial process has nothing to do with the sky, which in not within the reach of the ordinary man, the statement is not correct in law. In law it is not crossexamination which is said not to have any inhibition or limitation, but relevancy as a principle of the law of evidence, has to be considered. The point I am struggling to make is that evidence procured from cross examination can only be admitted if it is relevant to the live issues before the court. Counsel may decide to ask irrelevant questions (and some do) but the trial Judge cannot make use of evidence procured from such questions because they are outside the live issues in matter." - Tobi, JCA. Olomosola v. Oloriawo (2001)

  48. The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
    Bank: Zenith Bank.
    Name: Branham Paul Chima.
    Account No.: 2178756839.

  49. There is neither a constitutional nor a statutory requirement as to particular format in the writing of a judgment. Once a judgment contains the traditional elements by way of contents, an appellate court cannot interefere merely because it could have adopted a different style. Style in human life is personal to its owner. So too, the style of writing judgments. As long as the style adopted by the trial Judge does not ruin the traditional elements by way of contents, an appellate court will not interfere. And it is extremely difficult for the style to ruin the elements or contents of a good judgment. - Tobi, JCA. Olomosola v. Oloriawo (2001)
  50. Now this Court as well as the Court of Appeal are appellate Courts. They do not try issues. Rather they examine the way issues had been tried by trial Courts in order to ensure that the case was properly tried. It is thus very necessary to look at the findings of the trial Court on the various issues agitated before it. - Oputa, JSC. Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987)
  51. Section 118(2) of the CPA, in my view, makes the grant of bail to an accused person standing trial before a High Court, purely a discretionary matter in the hands of the trial Judge. Furthermore, where an offence carries a sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years or more, grant of bail is not a mere matter of course. It is a settled principle of law that except where a miscarriage of justice has been established or that there is a violation of some principles of law or procedure; or that the discretion is known to have been wrongly exercised, or where the exercise was tainted with some illegality or substantial irregularity, an appeal court seldom interferes with the learned trial Judge's exercise of discretion. - Tanko, JSC. Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007)

  52. The member(s) and administrator(s) of HCB put in energy in order to provide the cases summary they do on this online platform. We desist from charging you a fee, and we have decided to keep this online platform free and accessible for as long as we deem fit. However, in order to keep alive the impetus that makes us provide these free services, kindly make a donation, if you can.
    Bank: Zenith Bank.
    Name: Branham Paul Chima.
    Account No.: 2178756839.

  53. It is an elementary principle, very elementary that Counsel, who wants the Court to make use of the authorities cited in Court, must provide the name of Parties, the year the case was decided, and where the case is reported, name of the Law Report, the year, volume and page must be cited. But if the said case is unreported, Counsel must provide the Court with a certified true copy of the Judgment sought to be relied upon. - Augie, J.S.C. Oni v. Ekiti State (2019)



USE THE SEARCH BOX BELOW
If the search box is not available below, it is due to network issues; in that case, reload page or check back again.
The search feature works perfect! Although the search feature might not capture very recent uploaded cases; If you did not get a particular case, we recommend entering the Case Summary categories and use your browser search/find feature, or use the request feature below.


JUMP TO TOP


REQUEST A CASE SUMMARY





ABOUT



TERMS AND CONDITONS



ADVERTISE ON HBRIEFS



FOUNDER




Humongouz Empire
© 2018 - 2021

website developed by hzztudio