Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act states that every writ of summons for service under Part VII of the Act out of the State or the Capital Territory in which it was issued shall, in addition to any other endorsement or notice required by law of such State or the Capital Territory, have endorsed thereon a notice thus: “This summon (or as the case may be) is to be served out of the ………… State (or as the case may be) ……. and in the …… State (or as the case may be).”
Where registered voters could not vote due to no fault of theirs, it is said that they have been disenfranchised and if their votes are such as would likely sway the outcome of the election one way or the other, a fresh election ought to be conducted. It is only then that they would have the capability of showing that if their votes had been counted their candidate would have won or influenced the outcome of the election.
Where a plaintiff brings a claim for a liquidated money demand, the rules of court allow it to be brought under a peculiar procedure called the undefended list procedure. The purpose of the procedure is to enable a plaintiff obtain summary judgment without going into a lengthy trial if he can prove his claim clearly and if the defendant is not able to set up a bona fide defence on the merit. Where the defendant files a defence, the suit is transferred from the undefended list to the general cause list. It is an abridged procedure meant to enable the plaintiff obtain summary judgment without trial.
The registration of a trade mark may not in all cases provide a complete defence to an action for infringement of trade mark or passing off. The basis of the concept and principle of passing off action is that a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretense that they are the goods of another man. There is no reason why a registered owner of a trade mark should be allowed to deceive purchasers into the belief that they are getting the goods of another while they would be buying the goods of the former which they never intended to do.
Negligence is said to be omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man, under similar circumstances, would do or doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. Put differently, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
A customary tenancy involves the transfer of an interest in land from the customary landlord or overlord to the customary tenant, and which interest entitles the customary tenant to exclusive possession of the land and, subject to good behaviour, he holds in perpetuity. [Akinbade v. Babatunde (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 366; Dashi v. Sat long (2009) 5NWLR (Pt. 1134) 281; Lasisi v. Tubi (1974) 12 SC 71; Ejeanalonye v. Omabuike (1974) 1 All NLR 295 referred to.] (Pp. 422-423, paras. H-B).
By the doctrine of stare decisis, every inferior court is bound by the decision of a superior court of record and must apply it, however sure it may be that it was wrongly decided. The place of precedent, the doctrine of stare decisis, in adjudication is an eminent one.
Specific performance is a court-ordered remedy that requires precise fulfillment of a legal or contractual obligation when monetary damages are inappropriate or inadequate. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that lies within the court’s discretion to award whenever the common law remedy is insufficient either because the damages could be inadequate or because damages could not be possibly established. In essence, the remedy of specific performance enforces the execution of a contract according to its terms, and it may therefore be contrasted with the common law remedy of damages, which is compensation for non-execution of contracts. (Pp. 40-41, paras. H-B).
Recusal, with respect to judicial proceedings is the stepping aside or disqualification of a judicial officer from a case on the ground of personal interest in the matter, bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest, or if he has conducted himself in such a way that he could be regarded as having become, directly or indirectly, a party to the proceedings. (P. 234, paras. C-D).
Ratio decidendi represents the reasoning or principle or ground upon which a case is decided. It means what was decided. It is not something which a party imagines or thinks was decided. The ratio decidendi of a case lays down the principle of law that has the binding force of precedent. It makes good sense that such peripheral expressions, i.e. obiter dicta, should not be allowed to becloud the substance of a court’s judgment.
