LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Order of Retrial — When Inappropriate
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An order of retrial should not be made where it only serves the purpose of giving the losing party an opportunity to prove afresh what it has failed to prove. A retrial is inappropriate where the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and no substantial irregularity appears on the record.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ogolo & Ors v. Ogolo & Ors (2003) NLC-1931997(SC) at pp. 16–17; Paras E–A.
"An order of retrial should not be made where it only serves the purpose of giving the losing party the opportunity to prove afresh what it has failed to prove. A retrial is inappropriate where the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and no irregularity of a substantial nature is apparent on the record."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Retrial is not a remedy for a failed case. The principle applies to appellate practice. The appellant must show substantial irregularity. The rule prevents unnecessary retrials. The court will not give a litigant a second chance without cause. The principle is well-established.