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!

A PARTY MUST BE CONSISTENT IN STATING HIS CASE BEFORE THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The law is settled beyond any controversy that a party must be consistent in stating his case at the trial Court up to the appellate Court. A party is not allowed to present different cases before each hierarchy of Court as he likes. Put differently, a party is not allowed in the presentation of his case before the Court to approbate and reprobate. See Intercontinental Bank Ltd vs Brifina Ltd (2012) All FWLR (pt 639) 1192, Asaboro & Anor v Pan Ocean Oil Corporation (2017) LPELR – 41558 (SC), Comptroller General of Customs & Ors v Comptroller Gusau (2017) LPELR – 42081 (SC), Akaninwo v Nsirim (2008) All FWLR (pt 410) 610, Oliyide & Sons Ltd v Obafemi Awolowo University (2018) LPELR 43711 (SC).

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Uba v. Ozigbo, INEC, PDP (SC.CV/772/2021, October 21, 2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

approbate and reprobate

CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT & QUESTION AT THE SAME TIME

Iloabachie v. Phillips (2002) FWLR (Pt. 115) 726 , (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) page 264 at 288 it was held thus:- “A party cannot rely on and take the benefits of the acts of body or the contents of a document and at the same time turn round to question the legality of the same acts of the self-same body or the contents of same documents.”