LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Consideration of Issues – Duty of Intermediate Appellate Court to Consider All Issues Raised
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
While it is true that such a course has its own risks because a Judge of utmost sincerity and optimum honesty, as well as profound industry and knowledge of the law could reach a decision which could turn out to be wrong on appeal, it is equally true that where, from the nature of the issue which an appellate Court has accepted, it is inclined to order a retrial, it is advisable to say as little as possible on the merits of other facts of the case which are not relevant to the order of retrial and which may prejudice the retrial. Once an appellate Court bears these two principles in mind, it cannot go far wrong. It is a question of balancing these two considerations at all times.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in *7-UP Bottling Company Ltd. & Ors v. Abiola and Sons Bottling Company Ltd.* (2001) NLC-631996(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras A–B.
"While it is true that such a course has its own risks because a Judge of utmost sincerity and optimum honesty, as well as profound industry and knowledge of the law could reach a decision which could turn out to be wrong on appeal, it is equally true that where, from the nature of the issue which an appellate Court has accepted, it is inclined to order a retrial, it is advisable to say as little as possible on the merits of other facts of the case which are not relevant to the order of retrial and which may prejudice the retrial. Once an appellate Court bears these two principles in mind, it cannot go far wrong. It is a question of balancing these two considerations at all times."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Intermediate appellate courts must balance two competing principles: (1) considering all issues raised, even at risk of error, versus (2) saying little on merits when ordering retrial to avoid prejudicing the fresh hearing. Where retrial is ordered, the court should minimise comments on facts not relevant to that order. Excessive pronouncements may bias the retrial court or create premature findings. The balance depends on circumstances. The court cannot ignore issues entirely but must exercise restraint where retrial is inevitable. This protects the integrity of the retrial process while fulfilling appellate duties.