FINDING NOT APPEALED IS BINDING ON PARTY

COURT OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION GIVING CONTRADICTORY JUDGEMENTS BRINGS IGNOMINY

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.”

DELIBERATE DECISION TAKING BY COUNSEL FOR CLIENT IS BINDING

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”.

APPELLATE COURT IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH DECISION OF COURT NOT REASONS GIVEN

Ndayoko & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198, where Edozie JSC., had pronounced with finality on this vexed issue, thus: “An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere….”

WHEN IS A DECISION PERVERSE

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)

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEPART FROM HIS EARLIER DECISION

As departure from a decision of a court or overruling a decision of a court is a very major judicial exercise, which if done often will ruin or jeopardise the stable rules of judicial precedent, and particularly the rules of stare decisis, courts of law, even the highest court of the land, will not yield to the invitation of counsel just for the asking, in the sense that the case sought to be overruled is not in favour of the party. In asking for a case to be overruled, the party should take into account or consideration, the totality of the decision, meaning that the ratio decidendi must be considered along with the facts of the case. The party should also make a distinction, if any, in the case between a ratio decidendi and an obiter dictum. If a party’s worry is an obiter dictum, a court of law will not depart from its earlier judgment or overrule it because obiter does not ipso facto have or possess any force in the judgment. And when I say this I am not ignorant of the law that obiter dictum of this Court followed by this Court in certain instances could ripen into a ratio decidendi by frequent adoption.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008