STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ENTIRE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MUST BE READ TOGETHER TO DETERMINE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The law is settled that in order to discover the real intention of the legislature, the entire provisions of statute must be read together as a whole. No section of a statute should be read and construed in isolation. If the entire provisions of the FIA are read together, it becomes clear that before a request for access to information relating to personal information of an individual in the custody of a public official or public institution can be granted, the applicant must show to the institution or the Court where an applicant approaches the Court for a review of decision of a public institution to deny access to personal information in its custody, the existence of any of the conditions or situations stated under Section 14(2) and (3) of the Act.

— M.O. Bolaji-Yusuff, JCA. CCB v Nwankwo (2018) – CA/E/141/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

interpretation, statute

COURT IS TO INTERPRETE STATUTE AS DICTATED BY THE STATUTE

The duty of the court is to interpret the words contained in the statute and not go outside the words in search of an interpretation which is convenient to the court or to the parties or one of the parties. Even where the provisions of a statute are hard in the sense that they will do some inconvenience to the parties, the court is bound to interpret the provisions once they are clear and unambiguous. It is not the duty of the court to remove the chaff from the grain in the process of interpretation of a statute to arrive at favourable terms for the parties outside the contemplation of the lawmaker. That will be tantamount to traveling outside the statute on a voyage of discovery. This court cannot embark upon such a journey. – Tobi JSC. Araka v. Egbue (2003) – SC.167/1999

Was this dictum helpful?

EXCEPT DECLARED, STATUTES DOES NOT MAKE ALTERATION IN THE COMMON LAW

Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 14 paragraphs 904 and 906, which read: “Except insofar as they are clearly and unambiguously intended to do so, statutes should not be construed so as to make any alteration in the common law or to change any established principle of law, or to alter completely the character of the principle of law contained in statutes which they merely amend. There is no presumption that by legislating Parliament intended to change the law. ” “Unless it is clearly and unambiguously intended to do so, a statute should not be construed so as to interfere with or prejudice established private rights under contracts or the title to property, or so as to deprive a man of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard.”

– Cited in Abioye v. Yakubu (1991) – SC.169/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

STATUTE SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE

It is important in the construction of a provision to read the statute as a whole. Such a method of construction enables an interpretation which brings into focus related sections which are complementary.

– Karibi-whyte JSC. Idehen v. Idehen (1991) – SC. 271/1989

Was this dictum helpful?

STATUTES SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO DEFEAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE

It will in my view, be absurd, especially if one takes into account that there was no Chief Judge or Customary Court of Appeal President in Rivers State as at the time of constituting the tribunal. It is trite law that provisions of statutes should not be construed in a way as would defeat the intention of the legislature or to defeat the ends it was meant to serve or where it will cause injustice. The law is well settled too, that where the A interpretation of a word in a statute is capable of being given two meanings, the court saddled with the responsibility of interpreting such word shall adopt and use the interpretation which would not defeat the intention of the law makers. See Yabugbe v. C.O.P. (1992) 4 SCNJ 116; Lawal v. GB Ollivant (1972) SC 124.

— Sanusi, JSC. Wike Nyesom v. Peterside, APC, INEC, PDP (SC. 718/2015, 27 Oct 2015)

Was this dictum helpful?

“MAY” MEAN “SHALL” WHERE THERE IS AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED

OMOMZUAWO & ANOR v. UGBODAGA & ORS (2021) JELR 107021 (CA): “it is now trite in law that where the word ‘may’ is used but a right or obligation is thereby conferred, then the word ‘may’ is to be interpreted as ‘shall’ and is taken as mandatory. In the instant appeal looking holistically at the provisions of Section 19 of the said law conferring an obligation or duty as well as rights on the Appellants, I hold that the use of ‘may’ in that sub – Section (2) of Section 19 of the said law amounts to ‘shall’ and is therefore, mandatory.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WORDS LOSE THEIR ORDINARY MEANING ONCE DEFINED BY THE COURTS OR STATUTE

C.B.N. v. Lidan Eng. Ltd. (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2053) 35 at 65, D—E: ‘The settled posture of the law is that once a word or a phrase in an enactment has been judicially or statutorily defined, it bears that meaning assigned to it and sheds/drops its ordinary or technical meaning. Put simply, the moment a word or phrase has received a judicial explanation or definition, a fortiori from the apex court, the courts are bound to kowtow to that meaning in subsequent proceedings.’

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.