LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Failure to Decide an Issue – Effect on Validity of Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The general rule is that a court has a duty to pronounce on all material issues raised before it. But the result of a court of appeal not complying with the general rule depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The question to ask is the nature of the act or omission about which a complaint had been laid. For a condition to nullify judicial proceeding it must be a substantive provision which affects the jurisdiction or competence of the court, or a procedural defect in the proceedings which would result in a miscarriage of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC, in State v. Ajie (2000) NLC-711999(SC) at pp. 4–5; Paras D–A.
"The general rule is that a court has a duty to pronounce on all material issues raised before it. But the result of a court of appeal not complying with the general rule depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The question to ask is the nature of the act or omission about which a complaint had been laid. For a condition to nullify judicial proceeding it must be a substantive provision which affects the jurisdiction or competence of the court, or a procedural defect in the proceedings which would result in a miscarriage of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure to decide an issue does not automatically nullify proceedings—the effect depends on circumstances. Nullification requires either: (1) violation of a substantive provision affecting jurisdiction/competence, or (2) a procedural defect causing miscarriage of justice. Not every omission invalidates the proceeding. The court examines the nature of the omitted issue—was it material? Did its omission affect the outcome? If the omitted issue would not have changed the result, the proceeding remains valid. This pragmatic approach avoids technical nullification without substantial prejudice. The burden is on the complainant to demonstrate materiality and miscarriage.