A successful party is entitled to costs unless there are special reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement. In making an award of costs, the Court must act judiciously and judicially. That is to say with correct and convincing reasons. See Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC in NNPC V. CLIFCO NIG. LTD (2011) LPELR-2022(SC) (P. 23, PARAS. D-A).
— U.M. Abba Aji, JSC. Cappa v NDIC (2021) – SC.147/2006
SHARE ON
Badmus v. Abegunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 493, Onu, J.S.C. observed: “It is trite law that the court is without power to award to a claimant that which he did not claim. This principle of law has time and again, been stated and re-stated by this court that it seems to me that there is no longer any need to cite authorities in support of it. We take the view that the proposition of the law is not only good law but good sense. A court of law may award less, and not more than what the parties have claimed. A fortiori, the court should never award that which was not claimed or pleaded by either party. It should always be borne in mind that a Court of Law is not a charitable institution, its duty in civil cases is to render unto every one according to his proven claim.”
By Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, documents are inadmissible in Court where the maker is an interested person and had made the documents when the proceedings are pending or anticipated.
– Yahaya, JCA. Petroleum Resources v. SPDC (2021)
This Court had, per Ikongbeh, JCA in the case of UZOMA v OKORIE (2000) 15 NWLR (612) 882 at 893, held that: “Matters such as the number of years it takes to conclude a case, the number of adjournments, processes that had to be filed and the transportation of counsel to and from the Court are such that the Court may take into consideration when fixing the amount of costs and Court may not need to expressly state so. Thus … the fact that the reasoning of the trial Court on the matter was not recorded did not necessarily make the decision on costs arbitrary.” See also CITIBANK Nig Ltd. v. Ikediashi (2014) LPELR22447; Total Engineering Services Team Inc. v. Chevron (2010) LPELR5032 (CA); Emori v. Egwu (2016) LPELR-40123 (CA).
Speaking generally, costs as between party and party are given or awarded as an indemnity to the person entitled to them, usually a successful party at the conclusion of proceedings in a case, not as a bonus to him or imposed as a punishment to the losing party. REWANE v OKOTIE-EBOH (1960) SCNLR 461; UBN v SCPOK (NIG) LTD (1998) 12 NWLR 578; OGUNMOKUN v MILAD, OSUN STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (594) 261 at 287. In addition, in awarding costs, a Court is entitled to consider among other factors, the following: a) the summons fee b) duration of the case c) legal representation d) expenses incurred by the successful party in the ordinary course of prosecuting the case. e) The value or purchasing power of the Naira at the time of the award. See ONABANJO V EWETUGA (1993) 4 NWLR ( 2 8 8 ) 4 4 3 a t 4 6 0 ; DELTA STEEL CO. LTD v AMERICAN COMP. TECH. LTD (1999) 4 NWLR (597) 53 at 68.
— H.M. Ogunwumiju, JCA. First Bank v Oronsaye (2019) – CA/B/335/13
Assessment of the amount allowed in terms of the award of costs is the responsibility of the Court who determines what reasonable costs in the circumstances are. And when the Court in exercise of its discretion orders the costs payable and does so without being capricious id est in the sense that it is ordered in honest exercise of his discretion.
– P.O. Elechi, JCA. Emori v. Egwu (2016) – CA/C/259/2013
In the instant case there is no averment that the authority of plaintiff’s Counsel to conduct the case on his behalf was withdrawn at any stage or limited by any general or specific instruction. Counsel to plaintiff therefore had throughout the conduct of the case general and apparent authority to conduct the case of the plaintiff in his discretion within his professional skill and in the best interest of the plaintiff. The consent of Counsel in the negotiation for settlement of the dispute out of court was with the consent of plaintiff. There was no averment that Counsel and the defendants were not ad idem, both in the terms of agreement to settle out of court and in entering the consent judgment in court. Plaintiff was therefore bound by whatever results from such negotiations.
– Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Afegbai v. A.G Edo State (2001)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry