Both lower courts agreed that the factual situation in the transaction between the parties reveals a right vested in the appellant. The law is that the court must provide a remedy where the plaintiff has established a right. The court is also to look into the substance of an action and not the form. The appellant is entitled to a remedy and justice.
— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. BFI v. Bureau PE (2012) – SC.12/2008
SHARE ON
IN AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. VS. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA (1921) 256 @ 500 US. 350, 358, 41 SC et 499 @ 500, the US Supreme Court aptly held: “[T]he word ‘right’ is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion. Most rights are qualified.”
I hold that when a claim of right metamorphoses into one of supplication, it ceases to wear the clothe of a right but a mere privilege. In this case the appellant was literally begging the respondent for mercies.
– Pats-Acholonu, JSC. ADECENTRO v. OBAFEMI (2005)
When the Supreme Court departs from its earlier decision on a point, the departure does not operate to generally overrule and nullify all previous decisions that followed the earlier decision it has departed from. The departure serves to chart a new direction to be followed without affecting the previous status quo. If the new decision is one on procedure including venue, pending and new cases at all levels will now be decided in accordance with the new decision. If the new decision applies the law on the existence of rights, interests and obligations differently, new and pending cases will be decided according to it depending on when the cause action arose or when the right, interest or obligation came into being. The general principle of law is that a change in law does not result in the nullification of rights and interests based on the previous law. That is why amending or repealing legislations provide for the saving of such rights and interests including ongoing situations that originated on the basis of the old law. On the basis of this general principle, it is the law prevailing at the time the right or interest accrued or at the time a situation arose and not the new law that determines its validity. In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the Learned respondent’s counsel reliance on the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit as espoused by the Legendary Lord Denning in MACFOY v. UAC (1962) AC, has no basis here.
– E.A. Agim, JCA. Ogidi v. Okoli [2014] – CA/AK/130/2012
In Okechukwu vs. EFCC (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt 1490), the Court of Appeal held as follows – “Assuming a limited liability company is involved in a case where it was denied fair hearing, it has the right to sue for breach of its fundamental right to fair hearing. Again if the processes filed by the appellants were couched in such a way to show that the 1st Appellant’s ordeal and unwarranted arrests and detention was based primarily on the fact that he is the Managing Director of the 2nd appellant, then the 2nd appellant has a right to sue for the infringement of the fundamental rights of its managing Director.’
In the case of AG of Lagos State Vs. AG FEDERATION (2004) LPELR – SC 70/2004, this Court aptly postulated: What is legal right? A legal right in my view, is a right recognisable in law. It means a right recognised by law and capable of being enforced by the plaintiff. It is a right of a party recognised and protected by a rule of law, the violation of which would be a legal wrong done to the interest of the plaintiff; even though no action is taken. The determination of the existence of a legal right is not whether the action will succeed at the trial but whether the action denotes such a right by reference to the enabling law in respect of the commencement of the action. Per Niki Tobi, JSC @ 97-98 paragraphs G — B.
The citizen’s right to remain silent has for long been firmly recognised and established under the common law. In Rice v. Connolly (1966) 2 All E.R. 649 at p.652, the Lord Chief Justice opined: “The whole basis of the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority and refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place short of course of arrest.” Today, this right has been expressly preserved under Section 33(11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979. If, therefore, the appellant was not on trial and an irrelevant question was put to him, even by a judicial authority, it would seem to me that the necessity or obligation to answer such question cannot arise. It is trite that relevancy of facts is of paramount importance in our adjectival law. That paramountcy has been given conspicuous expression in Part II, Sections 3, 6 to 13 and 15 to 18 of the Evidence Act.
– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry