LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Judgment Based on Matters Not Pleaded – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is surprising how trial judge, after the pleadings before him and the evidence which he carefully reviewed just like a sudden storm brought out an adverse conclusion on matters unpleaded and on matter not in issue between the parties. Courts must confine their decisions on matters that are fought upon by the parties and it is wrong and I may also say, it is unjust, to open a new and unexpected new battle field in their judgments. This style may not only spell injustice on the parties but may also erode confidence in administration of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Obulor & Anor v. Oboro (2001) NLC-1321997(SC) at p. 4; Paras A–B.
"It is surprising how trial judge, after the pleadings before him and the evidence which he carefully reviewed just like a sudden storm brought out an adverse conclusion on matters unpleaded and on matter not in issue between the parties. Courts must confine their decisions on matters that are fought upon by the parties and it is wrong and I may also say, it is unjust, to open a new and unexpected new battle field in their judgments. This style may not only spell injustice on the parties but may also erode confidence in administration of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts must confine decisions to matters pleaded and in issue between parties. A judgment based on unpleaded matters is wrong and unjust—it opens a new, unexpected battlefield. Such a judgment may cause injustice and erode confidence in the administration of justice. The court cannot introduce new issues sua sponte without affording parties opportunity to address them. The principle ensures fair hearing and prevents surprise. Parties are entitled to know the case they must meet. A judgment on unpleaded matters is a nullity to that extent. The appellate court will set aside such decisions. The rule is fundamental to adversarial litigation.
