C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1 ON NEED FOR ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION TO BE FORMULATED FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST RATIO DECIDENDI OF LOWER COURT’S DECISION An…
MUHAMMAD V. UMARU (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 301 ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AT TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS UNDER ISLAMIC LAW Within the noble tradition of Islamic law, both the…
ON WHETHER “ALL AUTHORITIES AND PERSONS” IN SECTION 287 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION INCLUDES ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION Section 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999…
The court is imbued with the powers to consider and utilise a document in its record for the determination of a contentious issue even though the document was not tendered and admitted as an exhibit at the trial. Nothing forbids a court from looking into its records to resolve an issue as the court is required to dispassionately consider and determine every fact available. Thus, a court is entitled to look into any document in its records and make use of it in order to arrive at a just decision.
It is not correct law that two or more persons cannot jointly file one application for the enforcement of their respective fundamental rights alleged to have been breached or violated by a common act of one or more respondents. It is true that section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Order II rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 state that “any person” who alleges that any of the fundamental rights provided for in the Constitution to which he is entitled has been, is being or likely to be infringed, may apply to court for redress. It is also correct that the word “person” is in the singular.
The principle of fair hearing enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution demands that every party to a cause or matter has the right to be heard before a decision is given affecting him or his interest. He is not only entitled to a hearing; he is entitled to a fair hearing. The principle of fair hearing is one of the twin pillars of natural justice, to wit: audi alteram partem, which means let the other side be heard and nemo dat in causa sua, which means a man cannot be a judge in his own cause. [Zenith Plastics Ind. Ltd. v. Samotech Ltd. (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1620) 165; Duke v. Govt., Cross River State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356)347 referred to.] (P. 96, paras. D-F).
The court has a duty to consider and evaluate all material facts and issues placed before it during trial. Therefore, there is need for every court or tribunal to make findings and pronounce on material and fundamental issues canvassed before it by the parties as failure to do so may result in a miscarriage of justice. [C. N. Okpala & Sons Ltd. v. N.B. Plc (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1623) 16 referred to (P. 154, paras. D-E).
It is an inveterate rule of equity of great antiquity that equity will operate to prevent a party from benefiting from his or her wrongful act. In this case, it would be oppressive and unjust to the employee to award him or her damages on a basis prescribed in the contract of employment for termination of his employment in breach of that contract. To limit the damages payable by the employer to one month salary in lieu of notice would amount to enabling the employer to benefit from his or her wrongful act. (P. 30, paras. A-B).
Employments with statutory flavour enjoy the protection of the statute creating them as enacted by the National Assembly. Such an employment can only be terminated by the very statute that created it. [Adedeji v. C.B.N. (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt.1878) 531; Compt.-Gen., Customs v. Gusau (2017)18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 353; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 referred to.](P. 150, paras. B-D).