Friday, 18 January 2019
"I noted earlier in the judgement that learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the learned Justice of the Court below who wrote the leading judgment in the third person pronoun. This is unacceptable. It violates the ethics of the noble profession. It is contemptuous.On no account should a judicial officer be addressed or referred by pronouns." Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 18-19, Paras. F-A) OBASANJO EGHAREVBA v. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40029(SC)
Tuesday, 30 October 2018
The certainty in settled principles of law is perhaps one of the cardinal tools that make us determine the course of litigation most times. It infuses a sort of confidence in our oral and written advocacy. It is quite easy to presume, I suppose, that a case fixed for mention cannot be heard on the return date ( Olubusola Stores v. Standard Bank Nig Ltd (1975) NSCC 137; Mbadinuju v. Ezuka (1994) 8 NWLR (pt. 364) 535),
Saturday, 27 October 2018
One of the basic principles in our procedural law over the years is to always treat the issue of jurisdiction first whenever it is raised. It is quite elementary. Once an issue of jurisdiction has been raised, the general principle is that it ought to be resolved first before anything else in the proceedings.
Friday, 21 July 2017
This is the third part of the series on a comparative analysis of the new Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 with the 2011 Rules. As with previous posts, reference to the Old and new Rules relate to the 2011 and 2016 Rules respectively. Previous discussions on the innovations of the new Rules can be found on this blog by clicking on Part 1, and Part 2. I intend to discuss the provisions relating to applications to court in this third post.
Friday, 16 June 2017
My attention was called to an authority a few days ago about the topic. I instantly recalled making an argument for the position taken by the Court in an earlier post which can be found here. The position of the law regarding front-loading documents alongside pleadings has taken a twist in favour of doing substantial justice.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
I wish to continue the series by bringing Order 2 into limelight. The first post of the series dealt with the introductory part of the New Rules, particularly the interpretation provisions. You can find the post here. Interestingly, the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 (New Rules) followed the order and manner the 2011 Rules (Old Rules) was made. Order 2 of the New Rules is also dedicated to Service of court processes. One noticeable difference on the face of the Rules with a quick overview is that the number of Rules under Order 2 has increased. From the initial 9 Rules contained under Order 2 of the Old Rules, the New Rules boasts of 16 Rules under Order 2. I will make attempts to bringing out the new provisions and comparing them with the old ones.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
The new Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 has come with some modifications. While discussing with a colleague, who feels that only cosmetic changes have been made to the Rules, I felt it wise to have a look and share some of my own findings in this post. It is hoped that opinions and ideas from your own end will help shape this post. I intend to amend appropriately once your input is acknowledged. Kindly feel free to drop your comments below. I will make it a working series.
One of the basic principles in our procedural law over the years is to always treat the issue of jurisdiction first whenever it is raise...