THE LAW IS ON THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S SIDE

Generally, the law is on the side of the successful party, to assist him to reap the benefit(s) of the judgment. See NZERIBE V. DAVE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. (1994) 9 SCNJ 161.

— I.G. Mbaba, JCA. Ogunleye v. Aina (2012) – CA/IL/22/2011

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?

JUSTICE OF THE CASE IS DETERMINED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Justice of a case cannot be determined in vacuo but in relation to the facts of the case. Justice so to say, which is not done within the facts of a case is not justifice properly so called but justice in inverted commas and therefore injustice.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

MISTAKE TO CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

It is now settled law, that it is not every mistake in a judgment or decision that can warrant the reversal of a decision. To justify a reversal of a decision, the error complained of must be of such a nature to cause real miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the fact that a breach was considered, even if erroneously, in appeal which does not concern the appellant, cannot be a basis for the appellant to complain.

– Musdapher JSC. Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

TECHNICAL VS SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE

There is also the view of some counsel that the decision in Okafor v. Nweke had to do with technical justice. I agree that the age of technical justice is gone. The current vogue is substantial justice. See: Dada v. Dosumu (2006) 12 PNJSC 115. But substantial justice can only be attained not by bending the law but by applying it as it is; not as it ought to be. There is nothing technical in applying the provisions of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act as it is drafted by the Legislature. The law should not be bent to suit the whims and caprices of the parties/counsel. One should not talk of technicality when a substantive provision of the law is rightly invoked.

— J.A. Fabiyi, JSC. FBN v. Maiwada (2012) – SC.269/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR REVERSAL OF AN ERROR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MUST HAVE OCCURED

Again to be said is that it is not every error of law that is committed by a trial or appellate Court that justifies the reversal of a judgment. For a reversal to take place, the error must have occasioned a miscarriage of justice as it was material in the decision reached.

– M. Peter-Odili JSC. Adegbanke v. Ojelabi (2021)

MEANING OF JUST AND FAIR

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

THE LAW IS ON THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S SIDE

Was this dictum helpful?

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE OVER TECHNICALITY

Was this dictum helpful?

JUSTICE OF THE CASE IS DETERMINED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Was this dictum helpful?

MISTAKE TO CAUSE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

Was this dictum helpful?

TECHNICAL VS SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR REVERSAL OF AN ERROR, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MUST HAVE OCCURED

Was this dictum helpful?