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!

PROCESS OF CHALLENGING A RECORD OF APPEAL; AFFIDAVIT IS TO BE USED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

When a party intends to challenge the correctness of the record of proceeding, the normal procedure is for that party to swear to an affidavit challenging the said record of proceedings. It is his duty to set out the facts or partof theproceedings which is wrongly stated in records or what happened during the proceeding which is not included in the proceedings by the trial court. This affidavit will then be served on the trial Judge and/or registrar of the court and also on the counsel on the other side. When they are served, it is entirely up to them to file the counter-affidavit affirming that what was recorded by the trial Judge is correct and it reflects exactly what took place during the proceedings. In sommer v. Federal Housing Authority (supra) at 558, it was observed:- “Counsel for the appellant must be fully aware that to challenge the record, an affidavit has to be filed, which was done in this A case.” In Mokwe v. Williams (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt.528) 309 at 321, Tobi, JCA, opined:- “By the practice of the courts, the affidavit challenging the record of proceedings ought to be served on the Judge who can exercise his legal right to defend himself.” In Agwaramgbo v. Nakanda (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 341 at 360, Edozie, JCA, observed:- “A party who seeks to challenge the correctness of the record must swear to an affidavit setting out the fact or part of the proceedings wrongly stated in the record, such affidavit mustbe served on the trial Judge and/or on the registrar of the court who must then if he desires to contest the affidavit swear to and file a counter-affidavit”. I am of the view that the above is the correct exposition of the law and this is exactly what has been done in this case.

— Opened JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

record of appeal

EXCLUDING PAGES FROM RECORD OF APPEAL IS CHILDISH

I should say a word on the records of appeal transmitted to this court on 28th September, 2009. It surreptitiously, did not contain the pages in the records of proceedings of the trial court on 13th June, 2006 when the appellant was cross-examined by Mr. Femi Falana, for the defendants/respondents. And if not for the compilation of the Additional Records of Appeal at the instance of learned counsel to the respondents, this court could have been denied the truth of the existence of the cross examination of the appellant on this matter. It is tantamount to trying to cover the sun or the moon with one’s finger. But nothing can be done against the truth, but for the truth. It is sad that a game of hide and seek usually associated with little children can be played by adults, to this court. It is reprehensible and unacceptable. I say no more.

— T.S. YAKUBU, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010