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!

THE AIM OF JUSTICE IS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Law is blind. It has no eyes. It cannot see. That explains why a statue of a woman with her eyes covered can be found in front of some High Courts. On the contrary justice is not blind. It has many eyes, it sees, and sees very well. The aim of courts is to do substantial justice between the parties and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the cause of justice will be rebuffed by the court. See Bello v. A.G, Oyo State (1986) 12 SC P.1 Bello v. Ringim (1991) 7 NWLR Pt.206 P.675 When justice is done it brings joy to the Righteous. See Proverbs 21:15.

— O. Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Wassah & Ors. v. Kara & Ors. (2014) – SC.309/2001

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

justice

JUSTICE DOES NOT RELY IN FORMS & TECHNICALITIES

Oputa, JSC in Bello v. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 826 at 886: “the picture of law and its technical rules triumphant and justice prostrate may no doubt have its admirers. But the spirit of justice does not reside in forms, formalities nor in technicalities nor is the triumph of the administration of justice to be found in successfully picking one’s way between pitfalls of technicality. Law and its technical rules ought to be a handmaid to justice…”

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR IRREGULARITY TO SUCCEED, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MUST BE SHOWN

Adebayo v. Johnson (1969) 1 All NLR 176 where at page 190 this Court observed: “Even if the procedure adopted by the applicant Adebayo were wrong, we think that it is now much too late in the day for the directors to complain about it. They failed to challenge the correctness of the procedure at the commencement of the proceedings or on their entry into the case and sought unsuccessfully to get the Statement of Delinquencies filed by the applicant Adebayo struck out. Clearly in those circumstances the adoption of a wrong procedure would be no more than an irregularity, and would not render the entire proceedings a nullity as was submitted by learned counsel for the director Kamson: so unless a miscarriage of justice is thereby alleged and proved, the proceedings would not be struck out. See in re Kellock (1887) 56 L.T.R. 887: also Allen v. Oakey (1890) 62 LT.R. 724.”

Was this dictum helpful?

MEANING OF JUST AND FAIR

In the latter regard I refer to Halsbury’s Law of England, Vol. 21, page 348 para. “370.Meaning of just or convenient. The words just or convenient in the statutory provision (k) must be read just, as well as convenient (l). They do not mean that the court can grant an injunction simply because the court thinks it convenient, but mean that the court should grant an injunction for protection of rights or the prevention of injury according to legal principles (m). They confer no arbitrary nor unregulated discretion on the court, and do not authorise it to invent new modes of enforcing judgment in substitution for the ordinary modes (o).”

— Agbaje JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)

Was this dictum helpful?

JUSTICE IS A THREE WAY TRAFFIC

And justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic – justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder; justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased, “whose blood is crying to heaven for vengeance” and finally justice for the society at large – the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of. It is certainly in the interest of justice that the truth of this case should be known and that if the appellant is properly tried and found guilty, that he should be punished. That justice which seeks only to protect the appellant will not be even handed justice. It will not even be justice tempered with mercy.

— Oputa, JSC. G. Josiah v. The State (1985) – SC.59/1984

Was this dictum helpful?

TOWING JUSTICE VS UPHOLDING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

A court of law cannot ignore provisions of a statute which are mandatory or obligatory and tow the line of justice in the event that the statute has not done justice. Courts of law can only do so in the absence of a mandatory or obligatory provision of a statute. In other words, where the provisions of a statute are mandatory or obligatory, courts of law cannot legitimately brush the provisions aside just because it wants to do justice in the matter. That will be adulterating the provisions of the statute and that is not my function; the Judge that I am. I must say that I will be doing justice only to the appellants if I interpret Sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act in the way he has urged. But that will certainly be unjust to the respondent. He too, like the appellants, needs justice: As the independent umpire that I am, I am bound to do justice in the case before me.

– Niki Tobi, JSC. Calabar CC v. Ekpo (2008)

Was this dictum helpful?

MEANING OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

The decision is not at large but is carefully qualified by the expression “miscarriage of justice”. The court used the expression twice. Miscarriage of justice is simply justice miscarried. I do not think I have said much. I should go further to say that miscarriage of justice is failure of justice. It is the failure on the part of the court to do justice. It is justice misapplied, misappreciated or misappropriated. It is an ill conduct on the part of the court which amounts to injustice. See Onagoruwa v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 49. Miscarriage of justice arises in a decision or actcome of legal proceedings that is prejudicial or inconsistent with substantial right of a party. See Joshua v. The State (2000) 5 NWLR (pt. 658) 591; Sanusi v. Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527.

— Niki Tobi JSC. Pam & Anor. V Mohammed (2008) – SC.238/2007

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.