PROCEDURAL STEPS ON ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION IN FILING COURT PROCESSES IN THE FCT
HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA. PROCEDURAL STEPS
FIND JUDGMENTS BY:
CASES/JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS RELATING TO COURT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES (8)
[This Index in full and Judgment(s)/listed and published here can be procured in electronic PDF copies for a fee in singles or compendium. Research support is also available. Email us through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
| TITLE | MAIN ISSUES |
| ODUNSI AND OTHERS V. ODUNSI | COURT:- Allegation of bias against judge and application for order of transfer – Need for court to be wary in making such an order on the mere allegation of bias or likelihood of bias, which is not supported in any of the documentary evidence presented before that court and without giving the Judge concerned opportunity of being heard – Whether it is not enough for counsel to allege that his client entertains some hidden fears of not getting justice but such allegation must be one of substance |
| ODUNSI V. OJORA | COURT – INJUNCTION:- Alienation of family lands and properties by leading members of family – When injunction to stop sale would issue |
| ODUOLA AND OTHERS. V. NABHAN AND OTHERS. | COURT:- Court Orders – Non-suit – Meaning and effect – Giving an unsuccessful plaintiff another chance of proceeding again in the same cause against a defendant who, in any event, is not entitled to the judgment of the court – Whether the order does not create an estoppel per rem judicatam |
| ODUTOLA HOLDINGS LTD V. LADEJOBI | COURT:- Court adjudicating on interlocutory matter – Duty thereon – Need to refrain from making pronouncements on substantive suit. |
| ODUWOLE V. LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY | COURT:– Grant of declaratory reliefs – whether court is required to exercise judicial discretion. COURT:– Appeal – whether Court of Appeal can interfere with the finding of facts by trial court – applicable principles – whether the finding of facts of trial court that is perverse or founded on wrong principle of law may be overturned by appellate court. |
| OFOKE NJOKU V. THE STATE | COURT:- Murder -Defences -Duty on court to consider all defences available to an accused person whether trivial or not. |
| OGBU V. ANI | COURT:- Duty on court – Where evidence not provided by parties – Whether duty of court to look for – Need for court to act as unbiased umpire. COURT -Trial court -Function of. |
| OGBU V. THE QUEEN | COURT:- Assessing credibility of witnesses – Judge to make full use of his experience. |
| OGED OVUNWO & ANOR V. IHEANYICHUKWU WOKO & ORS. | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Court’s duty to pronounce on every issue properly placed before it for consideration |
| OGIAMIEN AND ANOTHER V. OGIAMIEN | COURT:- Customary or Native Courts – Variation in bench – Whether there is a presumption that no variation – Effect of variation of judgment |
| OGIDI AND ORS. V. THE STATE | COURT:- High Court of a State – Powers and jurisdiction COURT:- Record of proceedings – – Section 36(7) , 1999 Constitution – Constitutional basis – Duty of court to keep records of criminal proceedings – Bindingness of on court and parties – Discretion of court with respect to court record of criminal proceedings – Whether accused person is entitled to tell court what to record – Legal effect of failure to keep record of proceedings. |
| OGIDI V. EGBA. | COURT:- Trial court – Power with respect to amendment – Extent of |
| OGOLO V. OGOLO | COURT:- Declaratory relief – Discretionary nature of Court to grant. |
| OGOYI V. UMAGBA | COURT:- Supreme Court – Jurisdiction of – Scope of – Section 213 of the 1979 Constitution – Whether can entertain appeal against the judgment of High Court – Section 219 of the 1979 Constitution. |
| OGU V. QUEEN | COURT:- Power of court- Supreme Court’s power under S.27(2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1960. |
| OGUNBIYI V. ADEWUNMI | COURT:- Supreme Court – Concurrent Findings of two Courts below – Attitude to invitation to interfere therewith |
| OGUNDARE V. OGUNLOWO | COURT:- Supreme Court – Arguments at Supreme Court complaining against findings of trial High Court not adverted to or challenged at the Court of Appeal – Validity of |
| OGUNDIMU V. KASUNMU | COURT:- Exercise of discretion by lower Court COURT:- Discretion of Court – Circumstances in which the Court would exercise its discretion in favour of an Applicant for extension of time within which to appeal. |
| OGUNJUMO V. ADEMOLU | COURT – SUPREME COURT:- Concurrent findings of fact by High Court and Court of Appeal – Attitude to invitation to interfere therewith |
| OGUNLANA V. STATE | COURT SUPREME COURT:- Concurrent findings of two lower courts – Attitude to invitation to interfere therewith |
| OGUNLEKE V. OYELAKIN | COURT – Findings of facts – when will be deemed perverse. COURT – Evaluation of evidence by trial court – When Court of Appeal can interfere with same. COURT – Judgment of trial court – Need to demonstrate in full a dispassionate consideration of all issues raised or conversed by parties before it. |
| OGUNLEYE V. STATE | COURT:- Criminal trial – Defences raised by accused – Duty on trial court to consider – Effect of failure to so consider. COURT:- Evaluation of evidence – Duty on trial court – Use of “I believe” “I disbelieve” – Whether sufficient to relieve trial court of duty to evaluate evidence of parties. |
| OGUNSOLA VS.ALL PEOPLES PARTY (APP) | COURT:– Jurisdiction – conditions under which a court may decline same. |
| OGUNWALE V. THE STATE | COURT:– Issues joined by parties – duty of court to consider same. |
| OHAKANU V. NLEMAGU | COURT – ACTION – VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO:- – Locus in quo – Court’s refusal of application to visit locus in quo in a land matter – Visit not crucial in resolving any issue before the court – Whether refusal prejudicial to the appellants’ case. |
| OJAH V. OGBONI(2) | COURT:- Relief not claimed – Whether court can grant. COURT:- Technicalities – Attitude of court thereto. |
| OJO V. ANHIRE | COURT:- Trial court’s refusal to make an order or a declaration – Whether can be challenged at the Supreme Court. |
| OJO V. FALAIYE | COURT:- Discretion of courts – To be exercised judicially – Not Arbitrarily |
| OJONG V. DONALD ETIM DUKE | COURT – Appellate court – rule that same will not interfere with exercise of discretion by lower court. COURT – Appellate court – when same will interfere with exercise of discretion by lower court. |
| OJUKWU V. OBASANJO | COURT:- Appellate court – When will interfere with judgment of trial court – Relevant considerations. COURT:- Court of Appeal – Jurisdiction to act as Presidential Election Petition Court- Section 239 of the 1999 Constitution. |
| OKAFOR AND ORS. V. UCHEBO AND ORS. | COURT:- Rules of court – need for parties to comply with same. |
| OKAFOR V. IKEAYI AND ORS. | COURT:- Exercise of discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings – Relevant considerations |
| OKANU V. G A D TABANSI | COURT:- Supreme Court – Power to raise point suo motu. |
| OKOGERI C. LINUS & ANOR V. IKORO OGBONNA KINSLEY & ORS | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty of trial court to weigh evidence placed before it on an imaginary scale before arriving at a decision |
| OKWARA AGWU & ORS V. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC | COURT – JURISDICTION OF COURT:- Effect of decision of Court in the absence of jurisdiction |
| OLANREWAJU AYAN V. THE STATE | COURT – TRIAL COURT:- Primary duty of trial – Responsibility of a trial court to decide living issues between the litigating parties before it and hand down justice to the deserving party COURT – AN APPEAL COURT:- functions of an appeal court – Whether can only affirm or dismiss an appeal before it or strike it out, if it appears to be a non-starter – Whether it is not the function of an appeal court to reassess or re-evaluate evidence except where there are genuine complaints from the appellant which justify doing so |
| OLORUNTOSIN BELLO V. THE STATE | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty of a trial court and when an appellate court can interfere with that duty |
| OLUDOTUN OGUNBAYO V. THE STATE | COURT:- Rape and criminal proceedings – Common law attitude towards looking for corroboration before convicting on the sole evidence of a rape victim – history and justification in England with a Jury system – Whether applicable in Nigeria without a jury where the Judge is intimate with both facts and law – Whether there is a practical effect of the law expecting the trial Judge to warn himself of the danger of convicting without corroboration COURT:- Sentencing in criminal proceedings – Sentencing of accused person to imprisonment with an option of fine – Whether improper – Whether the fine should come first and in default, the imprisonment takes effect and not the other way round |
| ONI V. CADBURY NIGERIA PLC | COURT:- Effect of a proceeding conducted without jurisdiction – Whether parties can confer jurisdiction on the Court by consent where the Court lacks same – When is a Court said to be competent – Conditions which must be satisfied |
| ONIWARA B. IBRAHIM V. ISHOLA BALOGUN FULANI & ORS. | COURT – JURISDICTION:- Fundamental nature of jurisdiction in adjudicatory system |
| ONYIBOR ANIEKWE & ANOR. V. MRS. MARIA NWEKE | COURT – EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:- Trial court – duty to evaluate the evidence adduced and to ascribe probative value thereto – proper approach for evaluating evidence in civil cases- when appellate court will embark on an evaluation or re-evaluation of evidence |
| OPARA V. DOWEL SCHLUMBERGER (NIGERIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER | COURT – Supreme Court – Appeal from Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court – Basis of – What it should challenge – Where it challenges finding of trial court – Effect on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. |
| ORISAKWE V. STATE | COURT – EVIDENCE:- Extraneous event that happens outside the court – Evidence of – Admissibility – Whether court can rely thereon – Effect COURT:- Witnesses – Power of court to call or re-call witness in criminal proceedings – Source of – When can be exercised |
| ORO V. FALADE | COURT:- Cross appeal – When successful party need file cross appeal to the Supreme Court COURT:- Issues before the court – Duty on court to confine itself thereto – When court raises issue suo motu – Proper treatment of COURT:- Issues raised before court – Duty on court to consider all issues raised before it – Rationale – Court restricting itself to certain issues – Propriety of. |
| OSADIAYE V. THE STATE | COURT:- Finding of facts by trial court – Erroneous findings – When appeal court would interfere with same |
| OSAGIE V. ARASOMWAN | COURT:– Discretion of court – Exercise of property matters – Whether it is equitable for court to allow either party to enjoy benefit of rents accruable on property in dispute before the final determination of suit COURT:– Order of court – Grant of – Need for trial court to examine affidavit of an applicant alongside other legal requirements in deciding whether to grant an order or not. |
| OSAHON Vs. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA | COURT:– Appellate court – Issues raised in grounds of appeal – Whether court has discretion not to confine itself to them |
| OSASONA V. AJAYI | COURT:- Issues for determination – Issues before court – Failure of court to consider all issues submitted thereto – Effect – Whether amounts in all cases to denial of fair hearing. |
| OSAYAMEH VS.INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS LTD | COURT:– Trial court – where there is conflicting evidence between disputants – duty of. COURT:– Defence put up under the undefended list procedure – whether will succeed or not – duty of court not to consider same at the stage of determining whether defendant has a defence or not. |
| OSINUPEBI V. SAIBU | COURT:- Rules of court – When a court is called upon to make an order for extension of time within which to do certain things (i.e. extension of time prescribed by the Rules of Court for taking certain procedural steps) – Need for to bear in mind that Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed – Discretion of court towards extending time within which a procedural step has to be taken – Need for there to be some material upon which to base the exercise of that discretion COURT:- Appeals – Amendment of processes – When a grant of the amendment sought would alter the character of the case as considered by lower courts – Duty of appellate court thereto |
| OSU OBLA & ORS. V. OSANGA OTAGOYI & ORS. | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty of court when faced with irreconcilable conflict in affidavit |
| OSUAGWU V. ANUMONYE | COURT:- Trial Court – Specific finding on facts – Proper treatment of |
| OSUJI OKORO OFORKIRE V. JOHN MADUIKE | COURT:- Rules of court – Need for parties to comply therewith. |
| OSULA V. OSULA | COURT:- Discretionary remedy of court – Party in contempt of court orders – Whether entitle thereto – Rationale. COURT:- Disobedience o f court orders – Attitude of court thereto – Duty on court to see that its orders are not rendered nugatory. |
| OTOMEWO V. EZEKWE | COURT:- Quantum of damages awarded by court – When appellate court will refuse to interfere with award made by trial court – Relevant considerations |
| OUR LINE LIMITED V. S.C.C. NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS. | COURT – JURISDICTION:- Effect of constitution of court on the competence of the court |
| OVENSERI V. OSAGIEDE | COURT:- Order of court – Where plaintiff lacks locus standi or action is incompetent – Proper order to make – Striking out or dismissal. |
| OVIE V. ONORIOBOKIRHIE | COURT:- Basing decision on issue not raised in pleadings – Duty of trial Courts. |
| OWHONDA V. EKPECHI | COURT:- Issues before the court – Where court raises issue suo motu – Duty on court to call parties to address thereon. COURT:- Raising issue suo motu – Where court embarks upon – Duty thereon to call parties to address thereon. |
| OWNERS M.V BACO LINER 3 V. ADENIJI | COURT:- Jurisdiction and locus standi -Relationship between – Need for plaintiff to establish before court’s jurisdiction can be invoked. COURT:- Jurisdiction of court – Plaintiff lacking locus standi – Whether court call grant him any relief |
| OWNERS OF THE MV ARABELLA V. NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION | COURT – JURISDICTION:- Effect of non-compliance to jurisdiction of the court. |
| OWONYIN V. OMOTOSHO | COURT:- Judgment Costs – When award of costs to successful party may be refused |
| OWOYEMI V. ADEKOYA | COURT:- Judgment of court – Failure by court to deliver within 3 months from the conclusion of evidence and final addresses – Whether renders, such judgment automatically null and void – Section 258(1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended considered |
| OYADARE V. KEJI | COURT:- Appellate Court – What must bear in mind while considering the decision of a trial Court. |
| OYADEJI V. ADENLE | COURT:- Appellate court – Attitude of to findings of fact of trial court – When it will interfere COURT:- Duty on court to act on facts placed before it only COURT:- Pleadings – Amendment of – Whether court can do so suo motu. |
| OYAH V. IKALILE | COURT:- Native Court or Tribunal – Issues, subject matter and decision therein How determined – Relevant consideration COURT:- Native Court or Tribunal – Proceedings therein – Nature and character of – Flexibility of. COURT:- Parties – Parties before Native Court or Tribunal – How determined – Whether suing in representative capacity – Relevant consideration. |
| OYAMA V. EGBA | COURT:- Duty to decide issues on evidence before it. |
| OYEBANJI V. LAWANSON | COURT:– Evaluation of evidence – Duty of trial court to evaluate evidence before it in considerable details and decide on the balance of probabilities which one to accept |
| OYEDIRAN V. OYEWUNMI | COURT:– Findings of fact of a lower court – Interference with such findings – Position of the law with reference to same. |
| OYENIRAN V. EGBETOLA | COURT:- High Court of a State – Original jurisdiction thereof-Whether extends to proceedings in respect of land in non-urban area – Sections 39 and 41, Land Use Act construed. |
| OYESHILE SHODEINDE V. AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT | COURT:- Jurisdiction to grant stay of proceedings of judgment under appeal – whether a court can grant stay of its own jurisdiction already on appeal to a higher court |
| OYEYEMI V. IREWOLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IKIRE | COURT:- Court of record – Inherent power of to stay its own decision. COURT:– Decision of court – Sartre contrary to correct law stated in court – How treated. COURT:- Discretionary power of court – How exercised. |
| OYINLOYE V. ESINKIN | COURT:- Duty on court not to speculate. COURT:- Misdirection by the court – Incidence of – Onus of proof of – On whom lies – When will occasion miscarriage of justice. |
| PASTOR SAMUEL KARIMU & ANOR. V. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR. | COURT:- DUTY OF COURT:- Whether court can speculate in the absence of evidence on a matter before it |
| PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. PROF. STEVE TORKUMA | COURT – JURISDICTION:- Whether a court can assume jurisdiction over a matter when the conditions precedent to the institution of that action are not satisfied |
| PETER ABIOLA AND OTHERS V. COP | COURT:– High Court – Application for leave to file additional grounds of appeal – Application must be made at earliest opportunity. |
| PETER ADEBOYE ODOFIN & ANOR V. CHIEF AGU & ANOR | COURT – JURISDICTION:- Exercise of appellate jurisdiction COURT – COMPETENCE OF COURT:- Determinant of the competence of a court |
| PRINCE A. MAFIMISEBI & ORS V. GOV., ONDO STATE & ORS | COURT – COMPETENCE OF COURT:- Effect of defect into the court’s competence to adjudicate |
| PRINCE BOLA ADESUMBO AJIBOLA V. SAMUEL OLUJIMI SOGEKE | COURT:– Determination of disputes – duty of Judges with respect thereof. COURT:– Service of court processes and deposition to affidavit of service – Duty of officers of court with respect thereto – Whether a court may rely on deposition by a counsel in relation to service of process. |
| PRINCE BURUJI KASHAMU V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA | COURT – ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:- Situations in which an abuse of court process would occur COURT – ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:- What is the duty of the party that raises the issue of abuse of court process |
| PRINCE OLAGUNSOYE OYINLOLA V. CHIEF (ENGR.) ADEBAYO DAYO & ORS | COURT – ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:- What constitutes – Duty of courts to put a stop to an abuse of legal process |
| PRINCE SUNDAY BAMIDELE ADERONMU & ANOR V. INEC & ORS | COURT – THE SUPREME COURT:- Whether the decisions of the supreme court is impeachable |
| PRINCE YAYA ADIGUN & ORS V. THE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE & ORS | COURT – SUPREME COURT:- Finality of the decision of the supreme court. |
| PRINCE YAYA ADIGUN & ORS. V. THE SECRETARY, IWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ANOR | COURT – SUPREME COURT:- Finality of the decisions of the Supreme court – Constitutionality of |
| PROF. DORA AKUNYILI & ANOR V. DR. CHRIS N. NGIGE & ANOR | COURT – ELECTION PETITION PROCEDDINGS:- Interpretation of provisions of statutes relating to election – Whether Tribunal is competent to interprets provisions of the Constitution relating to election matters as well as those of the extant Electoral Act COURT – ELECTION PETITION PROCEDDINGS:- Doctrine of precedent or stares decisis – Role of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the final appellate court in respect of presidential and gubernatorial elections by virtue of the amended Constitution COURT – ELECTION PETITION PROCEDDINGS:- Where the Supreme Court has had cause to interpret some provisions of the Constitution relating to election matters as well as those of the extant Electoral Act – Where there is any contrary interpretation of the same provision by the Court of Appeal, or any other court or tribunal – Validity of such contrary interpretation – Proper treatment of |
| PROF. STEVE T. UGBA & ANOR. V. GABRIEL T. SUSWAM & ORS | COURT:- Whether court has power to grant reliefs where the Appellant no longer has any enforceable right by effluxion of time |
| PROFESSOR AYO OBEMBE V. DR. BISSALLAH EKELE | COURT:– Appellate Court – Interfering with the exercise of discretion by a lower court on the grounds that the appellate court would have exercised the discretion differently – Impropriety of. |
| PROFESSOR A.B. FAFUNWA V. BELLVIEW TRAVELS LIMITED | COURT – COURT PROCESSES:- Effect of court processes signed by legal practitioner in their partnership or firms name without indicating the name of the practitioner signing the process – Competence – How treated by court |
| PROFESSOR FOLARIN SHYLLON V. MRS. JUDITH ASEIN | DECISIONS/FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT:- When decisions or findings of trial court will be deem unimpeachable |
| PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES (NIG.) LTD. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE | COURT – COMPETENCE OF COURT:- Whether a court has legal competence to reverse or set aside its previous order or judgment |
| RABBO DAMINA V. THE STATE | COURT – Adversary system of justice – Duty and role of court. COURT – Evidence before the court – Duty on court to limit itself thereto – Where court deviates from – Effect on right to fair hearing. COURT – Official language recognized in Nigerian courts – Duty on court to restrict itself thereto. |
| RAJCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. LE CAVALIER MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS LIMITED & ORS | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty of trial Court to ensure that plaintiff discharges the burden to prove its case COURT – SPECULATION:- Whether Courts are allowed to speculate |
| RALIATU MUSA AIGORO V. COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND HOUSING, KWARA STATE | COURT – POWER OF COURT:- Whether a court can raise an issue suo motu and decide on same point without calling on the parties to address the issue |
| RASHEED LASISI V. THE STATE | COURT:- Primary duty of the trial court in evaluation of evidence and drawing the right inferences |
| R-BENKAY NIGERIA LIMITED. V. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED | COURT – ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:- Meaning of – Common feature of – When said to have taken place – When the employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse – Circumstances which will give rise to abuse of court process |
| RICHARD EMEJUO NWOSU & ORS. V. GABRIEL N. NZEADIBE | COURT – CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS:- applicable rules -important stages of |
| RICHARD IGAGO V. THE STATE | COURT – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:- Whether an appellate court has the right to interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by a trial court? COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Whether an appellate court should interfere with the findings of the trial court? |
| RIGHT CHOICE ELECTRONICS LTD. V. KELVIN FESTUS INTL. LTD | COURT – INCOMPETENT COURT:- Effect of proceedings where the court is incompetent |
| ROBERT ENAJITE UGHUTEVBE V. DR. OWODIRAN SHONOWO | COURT:- Supreme Court – Attitude of to concurrent finding of fact by lower courts. COURT:- Issues before the court – Determination of rights and wrongs of an action-Decision of court thereon-Need to hear parties. COURT:- Issues before the court – Where court raises issue suo motu – Need to hear the parties. |
| ROBERT I. IKWEKI & ORS. V. MR. JAMES EBELE & ANOR | COURT:- Discretion – When court can exercise discretion |
| ROLAND ALABI COKER & ANOR. V. JACOB HASTINGS COKER | COURT:- Court being asked to determine persons to participate in distribution of estate – Application – How made – Order XXXIV Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. |
| S & D CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V. CHIEF BAYO AYOKU & ANOR. | COURT – POWER OF COURT:- Principles applicable before a court can have the power to dismiss a case due to non appearance of the plaintiff at the hearing stage of a suit |
| S. J. ADESEYE AND OTHERS V. S. F. TAIWO AND OTHERS | COURT:- Proof of customary law practice – Opinion of experts in book publication – Attitude of court thereto |
| S.G. ARIRAN V. R. ADEPOJU | COURT:-Appellate Court — High Court of Lagos — Appeal from Magistrates’ Court — Additional Evidence — When deemed “not available at trial — Evidence obtained after closing of case but before judgment — Proper treatment of – High Court of Lagos ordinance, Cap. 80, section 46. |
| S.N. IBE V. PETER ONUORA | COURT:- Order 8 rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended) -Purport of – Whether empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgment. COURT:- Supreme Court – Decision thereof – Whether appeal lies therefrom – Section 215 of the 1979 Constitution considered. COUR:- Supreme Court – When may correct its judgment-Relevant considerations – Order 8 rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended) considered. |
| S.O. AWE V. GENERAL MANAGER, OSUN STATE WATER CORPORATION | COURT – JUDICIAL REVIEW:- Writ of certiorari quashing the act of an administrative body for failure to comp with applicable regulation – When court duty bound to issue same |
| SABALEMOTU AYINKE V. MUNIRU LAWAL AND OTHERS | COURT:- Decision of court -Party seeking to rely on -Duty to advert to the facts of the particular case and the basis of court’s decision. |
| SA’IDU ABDULLAHI RINI & ANOR V. BELLO MOH’D MATAWALEN MARADUN & ORS | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Whether a court or tribunal has a duty to rest its decision on facts pleaded |
| SAIDU H. AHMED & ORS V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA | COURT – POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT:- Powers vested under Section 22 of the Supreme Court – Powers to make any order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal – Extent of – Whether extends to power to rehear the case in whole or in part or remit it to the Court below for the purpose of such re-hearing or give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court – When provision exercisable only |
| SAIDU JILAWA V. SAMAILA SULE | COURT – RULE OF COURT:– Court of Appeal Rules, order 6 rule 10 – whether an appeal can be heard on appellant’s brief where respondent did not file a brief of arguments |
| SALZGITTER STAHL GMBH V. TUNJI DOSUMU INDUSTRIES LTD | COURT – COURT’S DISCRETION- whether can express judgment in foreign currency- whether there is a general principle to give judgment in foreign currency |
| SAMUEL OPARA V. EVELYN OMOLU | COURT:– Trial Court Judge – Conclusion of a hearing of the parties before him – duty imposed on judge thereof. |
| SANTOS M. BATALHA V. WEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED | COURT – STARE DECISIS:- Decision of the Court of Appeal – Bindingness of on the High Court. |
| SATURDAY NDIKE V. THE STATE | COURT:- Appellate Court – Whether and when can affirm the decision of the lower court on other grounds. |
| SEN. JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR V. CHIEF M. N. ELECHI & ORS | COURT – POWER OF COURT:- Power of the Supreme Court over proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted and prosecuted in the Supreme Court as a Court of first instance and to rehear the case in whole or in part or remit it to the Lower Court for the purpose of such hearing |
| SENATOR JOY EMORDI V. HON. ALPHONSUS UBA IGEKE & ORS. | COURT – SUPREME COURT:- Nature of -as the court of last resort as well as court of appellate jurisdiction which is regulated by the Constitution – Legal implications of double designation of the court – whether its jurisdiction is basically appellate apart from first instance restricted matters – Whether the court is statutory and cannot for the sake of doing justice confer on itself a jurisdiction where none is given to it by the Constitution or by any statute |
| SHELL PET. DEV. CO. (NIG.) LTD. V. ISAIAH | COURT:- Federal High Court – Exclusive jurisdiction of- What qualifies as petroleum mining operation to invoke same. COURT:- Jurisdiction of court – Issue of – When can be raised – Duty on court when raised. COURT:- Jurisdiction of court – Meaning of – Sources of – How may be limited – How may be unlimited. |
| SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED V. CHIEF TIGBARA EDAMKUE & ORS | COURT – POWER OF COURT:- rule of court – whether the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either of its own motion or on the application of either party, order any proceedings to be amended or not and for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real questions or question in controversy between the parties, shall be so made – justification COURT – HIGH COURT DIVISION:- Nature of the Federal High Court and State High Courts – whether there is only one High Court in a State with Judicial Divisions, created for administrative convenience or purposes – whether the Judges of the Federal High Court, sit in different States or separate courts as in the Federal Capital Territory – whether both courts are bound by one Statutory Rule of Court – legal implications |
| SHEMAR NIG. LTD V. MOKT INDUSTRIES LTD. | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty of a trial Court when considering the affidavits filed by parties |
| SHODEHINDE & ORS V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT IN ISLAM | COURT:- Jurisdiction to grant stay of proceedings of judgment under appeal – whether a court can grant stay of its own jurisdiction already on appeal to a higher court |
| SHONA-JASON NIGERIA LIMITED V. OMEGA AIR LIMITED | COURT – POWER OF COURT:- Power of the Court of Appeal to adopt or formulate issues that will determine the real grievance in an appeal |
| SILAS IKPO & Anor V. THE STATE | COURT – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT:- Duty of an appellate court not to deal with issues not placed before it |
| SIMON EDIBO V. STATE | COURT – SUPREME COURT:- Decisions in Oyeyipo V. Oyinloye and Chime V. Ude on the one hand and N.A.B. V. Barri Engineering and Nuhu V. Ogele on the other – Whether they are two sets of conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court – Whether both decided within their peculiar facts COURT:-– Distinction between rulings in the judge’s chamber on applications relating to filing of briefs in an ongoing proceeding and the taking of plea of an accused person in judge’s chamber – Constitutional requirement of taking a plea in open court – Whether can be satisfied by a plea taken in a Judge’s chamber even with the consent of all parties |
| SIR EMEKA OFFOR V. LEADERS & COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR. | COURT – DUTY OF COURT:- Duty placed on court where parties agree to negotiate on a judgment not satisfied with rather than appeal on it |
| SKENCONSULT NIGERIA LTD & ANOR V. GODWIN SEKONDY UKEY | COURT:- Competency of court – Proper constitution – Meaning and essential ingredients – What must be satisfied with regards to empanelling, Qualifications, Subject matter- Need to ensure that case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction – Whether any defect in competence is fatal |
| JUDGMENTS OF NIGERIAN COURTS | |
| By Substantive Areas | By Litigation/Procedure Areas |
JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE
JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES
HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA. PROCEDURAL STEPS
FIND LAW FIRMS BY CATEGORIES By Areas of Practice By
FIND LAW FIRMS BY CATEGORIES By Areas of Practice By