LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Order of Retrial – Not Appropriate Where Plaintiff’s Case Fails Completely
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An order of retrial is not appropriate where it is manifest that the plaintiff's case failed entirely and no irregularity is apparent on the record or shown to warrant such an order.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Udih v. Idemudia (1998) NLC-1951991(SC) at p. 10; Paras D–E.
"An order of the retrial is not appropriate in this case where it is manifest that the plaintiff's case failed in toto and no irregularity is apparent on the records or shown to the court to warrant such order."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Retrial is ordered only where the trial was vitiated by irregularity and the plaintiff has a case that could succeed on a proper trial. If the plaintiff’s case fails completely on the merits, retrial is inappropriate. The principle prevents unnecessary retrials. The appellate court will examine whether there is any evidence that could support the claim. The rule applies to both civil and criminal cases. The appellant must show that the failure was due to procedural error, not lack of evidence. The court will not order a futile retrial. The principle promotes judicial efficiency.