STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

SIGNING OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS BY A JUDGE – FORM 2

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It is clear from the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 that nowhere in the body of the Rules is it provided that whenever an originating summons is being taken out it must be signed by a Judge of the High Court to which the originating summons relates. The Rules are silent on such a provision. However, the form of the originating summons which is prescribed in the Appendix to the Rules as Form 2 implies that the originating summons would be signed by a Judge. But nowhere is it provided that it is mandatory for a Judge to sign the originating summons. That notwithstanding, a close examination of Form 2 will reveal that directives are being given to a prospective defendant in an action to do certain things. Some of the directions read as follows – “Let the defendant, within 14 days (or if the summons is to be served out of the jurisdiction, insert here the time for appearance fixed by the order giving leave to issue the summons and serve it out of the jurisdiction) after service of this summons on him, inclusive of the day of service, cause an appearance to be entered to this summons, which is issued on the application of the plaintiff…” “If the defendant does not enter an appearance, such judgment may be given or order made or in relation to him as the court may think just and expedient. The defendant may enter an appearance in person or by a solicitor by handing in the appropriate forms, duly completed, at the Federal High Court at or in the High Court of……..State sitting.” Surely, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel would be expected to issue these directives to the defendant, for the defendant who is at loggerheads with the plaintiff could ignore such directives and to no consequence, since neither the plaintiff nor his counsel could have any power to carryout or enforce the sanctions contained in the directions. It is only a Judge that is conferred with such coercive powers. It, therefore, follows that the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, contemplate that an originating summons issued in the form of Form 2 thereof would be signed by a Judge. What would be the effect if any person other than a Judge signs the originating summons need not bother us here in view of what I intend to state anon.

— Uwais, JSC. Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) – SC.197/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

judge

COUNSEL SHOULD NOT MISQUOTE JUDGE

I will pause here to advise that learned counsel when referring to statements made by trial Judges should not impute words not said by them, or misquote their statements and present statements which were not actually uttered or remarked by them (the Judges). A close look at the passage quoted above leaves one in no doubt that the Judge did not say that the depositions were of no assistance to him . Rather, what he said was that they were of little assistance to him . He is therefore misunderstood or quoted out of context.

– Sanusi JCA. Enejo v. Nasir (2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

THE JUDICIARY WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED DESPITE HARASSMENT

The 2nd Respondent presided over a state where anarchy was being supported and prevented Agents of the Government were allowed to malign the Judiciary. The Judges of this Tribunal were harassed, intimidated and made to run under cover. What is the offence of the Judiciary. It is the duty of the Judiciary to disperse Justice and no more. The Judiciary is an arm of Government constituted by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As stated above the Respondents contributed heavily in the success of this petition. At the pleading stage they made critical admissions. At the trial stage they supplied critical and important documents. Yet at judgment stage the 20 Respondent does not want this Tribunal to stand by justice by stating the truth of the matter. They took the position as was widely reported in the media both print and social that if they loose the case, they will kill the Judges and put the Residence of Kano State on fire. They threatened to bring unrest and banditry to Kano State. We are also citizens of this country in Kano to discharge our lawful duties. We have not committed any offence by performing our duty of adjudication. My message to the bandits in politics who want to take power by force is that the Judiciary cannot be intimidated. The Judiciary will never shy away from justice. Every Judge is a Soldier of justice, we are blessed with the courage to call a spade a spade and to do justice according to the law without fear or favour. Where a party purport to have his eyes on the Judiciary and remove same from his case, the Judiciary will still do its work. You remove your eyes from your case, you abandoned your case and concentrated on distracting yourself by having your jaundiced eye on the Judiciary. The Judiciary as represented by the Honourable Judges will concentrates on their duty of adjudication and put their own eyes on the law and justice. All judicial activities must necessarily and with the final decision of the Court. This is called a judgment. Upon the judgment of the Court parties can only acknowledge the decision of the Court, accord it respect and if not satisfied, go on appeal. A party who looses a case or anticipates the loss of his case can only prepare to appeal against the decision of the lower Court or prepare to appeal. This is what is obtainable in a civilised society. Kano State as we all know is a cradle of civilisation. No party on the account of loosing a case or on the basis of speculation of the possible loss of a case threaten to go an rampage against the Court and Honourable Judges. It is wrong to threaten the entire polity of Kano State with violence. A party must not threaten terrorism and mayhem on the people. The decision of the court must not be taken personal as to warrant an attack and violence against the Judiciary Functionaries as threatened by the Agents of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. I use this opportunity to condemn the gang of Red Cap wearers who like a violent and terrorist cult chased us out of Kano and put us in the fear of our lives. We believe that only Allah is the giver of power. Those who believe in Allah must bow to his will and submit to the authority of Governmental power. Resort to anarchy, violence and killing can never be a source of lawful power. Threatening to put Honourable Judges in the danger of their life as done in Kano by some disgruntled bandits parading as politicians is hereby condemned.

– Benson Anya, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

A JUDGE IS TO EXAMINE CASES BEFORE HIM WITH DUE CARE, AND MAY RAISE ANY DEFECT IN A SUIT

This issue reminds of the dictum of this Court in Sodipo v Lemminkainem OY and Anor[1986] 1 NWLR (pt. 15) 220, According to the Court: “A Judge exists to determine disputes and examine with due care and microscopic senses all matters before him in his pursuit of justice.” This dictum, to my mind, is a complete answer to the criticism by the appellants to the way and manner the learned trial Judge resolved the preliminary objection. In the first place, the question of no “live issue” found in the suit, was not raised by any of the parties in arguing the preliminary objection. A trial Judge, however, is within his rights to properly inform himself of a defect in a suit, either with or without external intervention, because it touches directly on the competence of the suit and hence the jurisdiction to entertain it as such. Thus, the established principle that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, at the instance of either the parties or by the Court suo motu, Amale v. Sokoto Local Govt and Ors. [2012] 1 SC (pt. IV) 45; Odiase v. Agho [1972] 1 All NLR (pt.1) 170; Petrojessica Entreprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd, [1992] 2 NWLR (pt. 244) 675. Where however, the issue of jurisdiction is raised, it should be examined in all ramifications. It should not be compartmentalized and subjected to piecemeal examination and treatment, Oloba v Akereja [1988] 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508. The very many faces of jurisdiction should come under the searchlight and be pronounced upon, notwithstanding that it might not have been brought to the attention of the Court.

— C.C. Nweze, JSC. Uzoho v NCP (SC.141/2007, Friday, May 13, 2022)

Was this dictum helpful?

PROCESS FOR REMOVAL OF A CHIEF JUDGE BY A STATE GOVERNOR

It is not difficult to see that for the effective exercise of the powers of removal of a Chief Judge of a State by the Governor and House of Assembly, the first port of call by the Governor on his journey to remove a Chief Judge of the State shall be the National Judicial Council which is equipped with the personnel and resources to investigate the inability of the Chief Judge to discharge the functions of his office the subject of disciplinary action of removal through the Committees of the Council and where the infirmity of the mind or body is involved the services of a medical board to examine and submit appropriate report on the Chief Judge to be affected could also avail the Council in the process of investigation.

– Mahmud, JSC. Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G Federation (2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

A JUDGE SHOULD BE SOBER

It has always been my considered view that sobriety should be the first watch-word for anyone who, per chance, finds himself in the exalted position of a judge. A judicial officer should not be talkative or loquacious. Indeed, he should not be boisterous. He should be polite to witnesses and lawyers who appear before him. Above all, a judge should not be biased under any guise. It needs no further gain-saying that Auta J. should watch his steps in the discharge of his judicial functions. My Learned brother has said it all. I also allow the appeal and abide by all consequential orders including that relating to costs in the lead judgment.

— John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC. Nnamdi Eriobuna & Ors. V. Ikechukwu Obiorah (CA/E/77/99, 24 May 1999)

Was this dictum helpful?

JUDGES ARE TO BE CURRENT WITH THE TIMES

Gbadamosi v. Kabo Travels Ltd (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) page 243 at paragraphs 288/289, it was held thus:- “Judges are required to keep abreast of time and not to live in complete oblivion to happenings around them. They are to keep pace with the time.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.