Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

AN ERROR OF LAW COMPLAINED OF MUST HAVE CAUSED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

OLADEJO ADEWUYI AJUWON & ORS VS FADELE AKANNI & ORS (1993) 12 SCNJ 32 AT 52 this Court held “It is not every error of law that is committed by a trial or appellate Court that justifies the reversal of a judgment. An appellant, to secure the reversal of a judgment, must further establish that the error of law complained of did in fact occasion a miscarriage of justice and/or substantially affected the result of the decision. An error in law which has occasioned no miscarriage of justice is immaterial and may not affect the final decision of a Court. This is because what an Appeal Court has to decide is whether the decision of judge was right and not whether his reasons were, and a misdirection that does not occasion injustice is immaterial. The error in law in applying the doctrine of lis pendens complained of did not occasion any miscarriage of justice. The erroneous application of the doctrine of lis pendens notwithstanding, there was no other course that was open to the Court of Appeal in the appeal than to invalidate the sale in issue and to dismiss the appeal before it”.

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

COURT HAS TO ADMINISTER THE STATUTES LAW

It would fall far short of ideal justice between man and man if, where no third party had been prejudiced by the omission, a party to a contract could evade his obligations merely be- cause the other party had not gone to a government office and registered the contract, but the courts have to administer the statute law as it stands and since the submission has been made the Court must consider its validity.

— Brett, JSC. Fakoya v Paul (1966) – SC. 238/1964

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR IRREGULARITY TO SUCCEED, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MUST BE SHOWN

Adebayo v. Johnson (1969) 1 All NLR 176 where at page 190 this Court observed: “Even if the procedure adopted by the applicant Adebayo were wrong, we think that it is now much too late in the day for the directors to complain about it. They failed to challenge the correctness of the procedure at the commencement of the proceedings or on their entry into the case and sought unsuccessfully to get the Statement of Delinquencies filed by the applicant Adebayo struck out. Clearly in those circumstances the adoption of a wrong procedure would be no more than an irregularity, and would not render the entire proceedings a nullity as was submitted by learned counsel for the director Kamson: so unless a miscarriage of justice is thereby alleged and proved, the proceedings would not be struck out. See in re Kellock (1887) 56 L.T.R. 887: also Allen v. Oakey (1890) 62 LT.R. 724.”

Was this dictum helpful?

NOT EVERY APPEAL ON ERROR WILL SUCCEED; THE ERROR MUST OCCASION A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

I think I ought to point out in this connection that even if there was any error in the procedure the evidence of the fourth defendant was taken, and I clearly do not so hold, it is not every error or mistake that will result in an appeal against the judgment in a suit being allowed. It is only when the error is substantial in that it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice that an appellate court is bound to interfere. (See Onajobi v Olanipekun (1985) 4 SC (Part 2) 156 at 163; Ukejianya v Uchendu 13 WACA 45, at 46; Anyanwu v Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Part 242) 386 at 400; Azuetonma lke v Ugboaja (1993) 6 NWLR (Part 301) 539 at 556 etc.).

— Iguh JSC. Chime v Chime (2001) – SC 179/1991

Was this dictum helpful?

TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. The reverse is equally disturbing. Justice rushed is a travesty of justice and a threat to the fabric that binds civilized society together. As if the rushed justice was not bad enough, the panel presented to the Taraba House of Assembly an incomplete and edited report upon which the appellant was removed on the 4th October, 2012, the day following the submission of the report. At least, the respondents did not disclaim the incomplete and edited report.

– Ngwuta, J.S.C. Danladi v. Dangiri (2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE OVER TECHNICALITY

EGOLUM V. OBASANJO (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.511) 255 at 413, where the Supreme Court, per ACHIKE, JSC, held thus: ‘The heydays of technicalities are now over because the weight of judicial authorities has today shifted from undue reliance on technicalities to doing substantial justice evenhandedly to the parties to the case.”

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.