Posts

WHETHER MANDATORY FOR COURT TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT

Image
The case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division delivered on the 16th day of March, 2022, in Appeal No. CA/S/121S/2020, wherein the appeal from the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State sitting in Argungu which had itself heard an appeal from the Upper Sharia Court, Gwandu was allowed on the ground that the Sharia Court of Appeal, Kebbi State lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. KAMBAZA V. KAMBAZA (2026) 15 NWLR (Pt. 2063) 399 (SC). A brief of narration of what transpired in the case is that: The respondent, who was the claimant at the Upper Sharia Court, Gwandu, filed an action against the appellant inviting the court to recover a parcel of land from the appellant, who was the defendant at the lower court, claiming he inherited the same from his father. The matter went into hearing and the lower trial court confirmed the ownership of the farmland in favour of the appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, th...
Post a Comment
Read more

EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE CONCEPT OF FUNCTUS OFFICIO

Image
It is perhaps one of the most settled judicial principles, if not even the most, that once a court delivers its judgement or makes a decision as regards a particular matter, it becomes “functus officio” and afterwards does not have the power to revisit the same subject matter to adjudicate over it once again. This principle is however not sacrosanct, as there exists some exceptions to its generality. This write up shall border on the meaning and essence of the concept of functus officio and the exceptions thereto, in the light of the decision of the court in Abinde v. Salako (2025) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1978) 159. Concise account of relevant facts of the case is as follows: The appellants, as plaintiffs, through a writ of summons signed by a law firm, against one Alhaja Aduke Salami at the trial court, sought: • a declaration of lawful ownership over a particular parcel of land; • a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her servants, agents, workers, representatives or priv...
Post a Comment
Read more

WHETHER DISMISSAL OF CLAIM OF A PLAINTIFF AUTOMATICALLY CONFIRMS A DEFENDANT’S TITLE TO A CERTAIN PROPERTY

Image
In land disputes in Nigeria, parties often assume that once the court dismisses the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant’s title is automatically validated. This assumption is flawed. The dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim is not synonymous with a judicial declaration in favour of the defendant’s title. Under the Nigerian legal system, title to land is proven positively, not by the weakness of the opposing party’s case. For more insight to an adventure on the above topic, recourse shall be made to the Supreme Court case of IBUDE v. SAIDI & Anor. (2021) 10 NWLR (pt. 1785) 567. A brief overview of the fact of the case goes thus: The dispute arose over a parcel of land situated in Benin City, Edo State. The appellant, Alake Osarobo Ibude, claimed ownership of the land through inheritance from his late father, who had allegedly received the land from the Oba of Benin under Benin customary law. According to the appellant, following the death of his father, he became the lawful own...
Post a Comment
Read more

IDENTIFICATION PARADE: WHEN AND WHEN NOT NECESSARY

Image
The necessity of an identification parade depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the identification of the accused person. Nigerian courts have consistently held that an identification parade is not an automatic requirement in every criminal trial; rather, it becomes necessary where there is a genuine doubt as to the identity of the accused and where the witness had no previous opportunity of knowing or seeing the accused before the commission of the offence. This principle was clearly explained in OSHO V. THE STATE OF EKITI (2026) 7 NWLR (PT. 2042) 381, where the court emphasized that the need for an identification parade is determined by the facts of each case. The court made it clear that an identification parade is required where the identity of the accused is in dispute or where the witness’s ability to recognize the accused is uncertain. However, where the accused is well known to the witness, or where the circumstances of the offence gave the witness suffic...
Post a Comment
Read more

CAUSATION OF DEATH AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Image
It is these three elements that must be proved simultaneously and beyond reasonable doubt, failure of which will result back to the presumption of the innocence of the accused. However, it may be asked, how does the prosecution prove the second element of the crime, that the death of the victim was really caused by the action of the accused? To that one may instinctively respond that: “By medical evidence!” How then in the absence of such?? The Supreme Court in the very recent case of UMAR V. STATE (2026) 5 NWLR (PT. 2036) 67 answered the above question. The facts of the case, straightforward and devoid of complexities, are remitted thus: On the 25th June, 2015, at about 12:30 pm, in Tafa Town along the Kaduna-Abuja Expressway, Kaduna State, one Sgt. Mohammed Tiji of the Nigeria Police, Zaria Command, was going home, after close of work, when he heard a shout. He looked around and saw that appellant, who was on trial accused of being guilty of culpable homicide punishable ...
Post a Comment
Read more

WHEN COURT CAN RAISE ISSUE SUO MOTU AND DETERMINE IT WITHOUT HEARING PARTIES THEREON

Image
The doctrine of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is one of the twin pillars of natural justice in Nigeria. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Because of this, the general rule is that a court must not decide any issue that has not been raised by the parties and argued before it. However, Nigerian courts have recognized narrow, well-defined circumstances where a court may raise an issue suo motu (on its own motion) and even determine it without calling on parties to address it. These exceptions exist because some matters go to the root of the court’s power to adjudicate at all. If left unaddressed, the entire proceedings would be a nullity. Despite the general rule, the courts will intervene without hearing parties where the issue is fundamental to jurisdiction or to the integrity of the judicial process. The main categories when court can raise issue suo motu and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: WHETHER AND WHEN SUFFICIENT TO GROUND CONVICTION

Image
To effectively navigate through the aforestated topic, recourse shall be made to the recent case of ORI V. STATE (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1824) 441 (SC), which involves an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on 13th July, 2018, refusing the appellants application for dismissing the judgement of the High Court which was delivered on 6th July, 2017. The Supreme Court in an unanimous decision allowed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the two lower courts. A brief of narration of what transpired in the case was that: A police officer was on his way along Iwofin-Olorunda Road from his duty post in the vehicle of a couple, one Mr. Fatokun and his wife, when they suddenly sighted some armed men, including the appellant, who stopped the vehicle. The appellant approached the police officer at close range where he was seated in the vehicle and dispossessed him of his bag containing his police uniform. He also, together with his accomplice, took away a bag ...
Post a Comment
Read more