The duty of every appellant is to show and or establish that the decision he has appealed was wrong or unreasonable. Every decision of a Court of law, a judicial act, done in a manner substantially regular is presumed to be correct and that formal requisites for its validity were complied with. The presumption of regularity under Section 167(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is all about this.
— E. Eko, JSC. Kassim v. State (2017) – SC.361/2015
SHARE ON
Pats-Acholonu, JSC in N.I.M.B. LTD vs. U.B.N. LTD (2004) 12 NWLR (pt. 888) 599 at 618 thus: “Now there is no doubt that the two Courts in this case of co-ordinate jurisdiction became seised of the same subject matter in which it must be made absolutely clear, made orders which from whatever or however any one may look and try to synthesise or analyse them, were pitched against each other. In that case, the protagonists, id est, the legal combatants would inevitably be put in the quandary as to which order would prevail or be obeyed. …They ought necessarily to avoid a situation where the Court by its being less cautious exposes itself by the nature of the order it makes to ridicule and the majesty and aura of its pronouncements are either compromised or treated with ignominy as a non-issue by the confused parties and I dare say by the common citizenry.”
Omonuwa v. Oshodin & Anor (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 924: “There is clearly no doubt that the principle established in all the above cited cases is that where the decision of the court does not finally determine the issue or issues between the parties or does not at once affect the status of the parties for whichever side the decisions is given, it is interlocutory.”
My humble view is that the word “interlocutory” simply means “(of an order, judgment, appeal, etc) interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy.” A “ruling” is “the outcome of a Court’s decision either on some points of law or on the case as a whole.” See Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th edition, pages 889 and 1450.
— J.T. Tur, JCA. Abdulkardir Abacha v Kurastic [2014] – CA/A/406/2010
Supreme Court made this very clear in Akanbi v Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 143, Per Eso JSC as follows: – “I think it would be extending Ibodo v Enarofia case beyond reason if every considered or assumed considered professional decision of a counsel which has gone wrong should qualify as ground of appeal. We did say once, and I am still of the firm view that the conduct of a case lies wholly with counsel. The rule really should be “caveat client”. If you choose a counsel, you should permit him, once seised of the case to conduct the case in the manner of his professional ability. Indeed that is part of the independence of the Bar. If there is lapse in his office, his clerk forgetting to file some papers, he forgetting the date of hearing or such like procedural errors, of course the client should not be made to suffer. If however, he takes a deliberate decision and loses thereby, then, it is his privilege to lose and that will constitute a right for the client for utilization as a ground of appeal. For, if it were not so, the profession would be in jeopardy”.
A decision is perverse where, for example, it has been shown that the trial court (or the court below) took into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account or where the decision has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
— Kekere-Ekun JSC. Uzodinma v. Ihedioha (2020)
Under the rules of precedent or stare decisis it is the judgment of the Supreme Court as the final appellate court that should be binding on the Court of Appeal. Thus where there is a conflict between the Supreme Court’s decision and that of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court’s decision should prevail and be binding on the Court of Appeal or any other court, notwithstanding any error in the former.
— Adeyemo v. Ida & Ors. (1998) – CA/1/6/92
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry