LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Fair Hearing — Prejudgment of Issues — Effect of Trial Judge Making Findings on Substantive Issues During Interlocutory Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a trial judge manifestly prejudges substantive issues during interlocutory proceedings, the proceedings become unfair and tainted, constituting a fundamental breach of procedural equality, and the decision must be set aside.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Idakwo v. Ejiga & Anor (2002) NLC-1101998(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras A–D.
"Where the Judge had manifestly prejudged the issues in the case before the trial, when the proceedings are held not to be fair and the unfairness had tainted the entire proceedings there would have been a fundamental breach of the principle of procedural equality of the parties essential to our system of adjudication, such as to make the proceedings a sham. The normal thing to do in such a situation is to set aside the decision."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial judge must not prejudge substantive issues during interlocutory proceedings. Prejudgment violates fair hearing and procedural equality. The judge must remain impartial and open-minded. If the judge has already expressed a concluded view on the merits, the trial becomes a sham. The decision must be set aside. The principle applies to comments, rulings, or findings that reveal bias. The appearance of bias is as damaging as actual bias. The remedy is a new trial before a different judge. The rule protects the integrity of judicial proceedings. The judge must avoid premature findings on ultimate issues.
