LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Judgments – Court’s Power to Reformulate Prayers – Limits of Judicial Competence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is an elementary and fundamental principle for the determination of disputes between parties that the judgment must be confined to the issues raised by the parties. It is clearly not competent for the Judge suo motu to make a case for either or both of the parties and then proceed to give judgment on the case so formulated contrary to the case of the parties before him. It is well settled that a plaintiff is bound by the case put forward in his writ of summons. Similarly, an applicant will be bound by the prayers in his motion.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in International Bank for West Africa Ltd. & Anor v. Pavex International Company (Nigeria) Ltd. (2000) NLC-781994(SC) at p. 16; Paras A–C.
"It is an elementary and fundamental principle for the determination of disputes between parties that the judgment must be confined to the issues raised by the parties. It is clearly not competent for the Judge suo motu to make a case for either or both of the parties and then proceed to give judgment on the case so formulated contrary to the case of the parties before him. It is well settled that a plaintiff is bound by the case put forward in his writ of summons. Similarly, an applicant will be bound by the prayers in his motion."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A court’s judgment must be confined to the issues and prayers presented by the parties. The court cannot suo motu formulate a new case for a party or grant relief not prayed for, even if such relief appears justified. Plaintiffs are bound by their writ and statement of claim; applicants are bound by their motion prayers. Any judgment exceeding these boundaries is incompetent and liable to be set aside. This principle ensures fair hearing, prevents surprise, and maintains the adversarial nature of litigation. The court adjudicates disputes presented, not those it imagines.