CASE IDENTIFICATION
EDITORIAL SUMMARY
Editorial — not part of the judgment as delivered
Facts of the Case
The Respondent was charged before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Abuja, on a single count of false declaration of assets contrary to Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, punishable under Section 23(2) of the Act. The trial Tribunal convicted the Respondent and ordered that the property (plot 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja) be seized and forfeited to the Federal Government. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Tribunal, and acquitted and discharged the Respondent. Aggrieved, the Appellant brought an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The Court considered the competence of the Notice of Appeal.
Decision / Holding
The Supreme Court struck out the Notice of Appeal for being incompetent. The Court held that the three grounds of appeal were attacking the appraisal of facts and evaluation of evidence, being grounds of mixed law and facts or facts alone, for which prior leave of Court was required under Section 233(3) of the Constitution, but was not sought or obtained.
Ratio Decidendi / Principles
APPEAL — Leave of Court/Leave to Appeal — Effect of Failure to Obtain Leave of Court to Appeal Where Same Is Required “The obtaining of leave where leave is required is a condition precedent to the validity of the Notice of Appeal. This is because the Notice of Appeal is the foundation/originating process in an appeal. Where the foundation is faulty the entire edifice built thereon will collapse like a pack of cards.” Per Kekere-Ekun, JSC, in FRN v. Orubebe (2024) NLC-123-680-2017(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras D–A.
APPEAL — Leave of Court/Leave to Appeal — Whether Leave of Court Is Required to Appeal on Grounds of Fact or Mixed Law and Fact and Effect of Failure; When Leave Will Not Be Required to File an Appeal in a Criminal Matter “By a combined effect of Section 233(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a criminal appeal to this Court which involves question of mixed law and facts or questions of facts alone and which does not raise questions as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution; or questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person; or which does not stem from a decision in which any person has been sentenced to death by the Court of Appeal or in which the Court of Appeal has affirmed a sentence of death imposed by any other Court; can only be brought by leave of the lower Court or this Court.” Per Jauro, JSC, in FRN v. Orubebe (2024) NLC-123-680-2017(SC) at pp. 15–16; Paras D–A.
APPEAL — Leave of Court/Leave to Appeal — Whether Leave of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court Is Required to Appeal on Ground(s) of Fact or Mixed Law and Fact to the Supreme Court; Effect of Failure to Seek Leave “An appeal from the decisions of the Court below to this Court on grounds other than of law alone or pure law, is not one which can be validly brought as of right by an Appellant under the provisions of Section 233 (3) of the Constitution (as amended). … The law is now elementary in this Court that, by dint of the provisions in Section 233 (3) of the Constitution, an appeal from the decisions of the Court below on grounds involving questions of mixed law and facts or facts alone, require the prior leave of either the Court below or of this Court, as condition precedent, for it to be competent and validly brought by an Appellant to enable the Court to properly assume jurisdiction over it. Failure or omission to obtain such prior leave … renders a Notice of appeal brought or filed without the leave, incompetent.” Per Garba, JSC, in FRN v. Orubebe (2024) NLC-123-680-2017(SC) at pp. 5–8; Paras D–A.
COURT — Jurisdiction — Whether a Court Without Jurisdiction Can Confer One on Itself “Since the law is known, now, that no Court of law in Nigeria, including this Court, has the judicial power and authority to confer or vest itself with jurisdiction over a matter/case or appeal where jurisdiction is statutorily divested and clearly absent, the duty to proceed with a consideration of the appeal on the merit of the issues raised by the parties does not arise because jurisdiction is both intrinsic and extrinsic in judicial proceedings of the Court.” Per Garba, JSC, in FRN v. Orubebe (2024) NLC-123-680-2017(SC) at p. 9; Paras D–A.
COURT — Raising Issue(s) Suo Motu — Whether a Court Can Raise the Issue of Jurisdiction Suo Motu and Determine It Without Hearing Parties “The issue of the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate over an appeal on the ground of the incompetence of the originating process, i.e. the Notice of Appeal, can properly be raised and decided at the judgment stage by this Court without the need to call for address from the parties. … It has been held by this Court in these decisions, that the principle that whenever a Court raises an issue not within the contemplation of the parties and suo motu, parties should be given a hearing before a decision on the issue so raised, applied mainly to issues of fact and that, in special circumstances, an issue of law or jurisdiction may be raised suo motu without hearing the parties, decision upon the issue so raised.” Per Garba, JSC, in FRN v. Orubebe (2024) NLC-123-680-2017(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras D–A.
Orders of Court
Notice of Appeal struck out for being incompetent. Parties to bear their costs.
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Appellant(s)
Appellant not represented
Counsel for the Respondent(s)
F. Zimughan, Esq. with him, C. Nzeagwu, Esq.
Amicus Curiae
None
JUDGMENTS / OPINIONS OF THE COURT
Authoritative judicial text as delivered
Lead / Majority Opinion
— (DELIVERED BY MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. (DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT):)
The Respondent was charged before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, (trial tribunal) sitting at Abuja and convicted on. a single count of false declaration of assets contrary to Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act. Cap C15 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, punishable under Section 23(2) of the Act.
The particulars of the offence, as set out in the Amended charge dated 7th March, 2016 are as follows:-
“That you, GODSDAY PETER ORUBEBE on or about 29th day of June, 2011 white being a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in charge of Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable tribunal, did make a false declaration of assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) when you failed to declare plot 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja on assumption of Office on 26th day of September, 2007 and on leaving office (at the end of your tenure) on the 29th day of June, 2011 and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Cup. C15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
1
and punishable under Section 23(2) of the same Act. “
During the trial, the Appellant, as the prosecutor, called a sole witness; one Samueal Modojemu, a staff of the Code of Conduct Bureau, in the discharge of the burden of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On his part, the Respondent testified as DW2 and called DW1 in defence of the charge. At the end of the trial, the Respondent was convicted as charged and as punishment, the trial Tribunal decreed that:-
“The property known as plot 2057 which belongs to the Defendant is hereby seized and forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria. ”
The Respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (Court below) was allowed in the judgment delivered on 14th June, 2017 and the decision by the trial Tribunal was set aside. The Respondent was also acquitted and discharged.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Court below, the Appellant brought this appeal vide the Notice of appeal dated and filed on the 22nd June, 2017 on three (3) grounds which I find expedient to set out as they appear on the Notice of appeal. Here they are:-<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; scrollbar-color: var(–thumbBG) var(–scrollbarBG);”></br<>
2
GROUND ONE
“The lower Court erred in law when it held:
That the issue before the tribunal was not declaration of title, but false declaration of assets and as such unregistered instrument of transfer are admissible in proof of the payment of purchase price which showed that Divertion Properties Limited had acquired the property.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR.
(i) That plot No. 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja was acquired by the Respondent on April 10th 2011 while he was serving as a Minister of the Federal Republic.
(ii) That plot no. 2057 Asokoro District was not declared by the Respondent in his exit form submitted on the 28th June, 2011.
(iii) That there was no evidence to prove that the said plot No. 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja was a gift from the Federal Government of Nigeria before the Tribunal and Appellate Court.
(iv) That the Certificate of Occupancy of plot 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja still bears the name of the Respondent, GODSDAY PETER ORUBEBE in the Federal Capital Territory Registry as at the date of the Tribunal Judgment on 4th October, 2016 as the title or beneficial owner.
(v) That the issue before the Court
3
was non-declaration of the plot No. 2057 Asokoro District Abuja which the title still bears the Respondent’s name in the Land Registry.
GROUND TWO
The lower Court erred in law when it held: That the tribunal was wrong to convict the Respondent for false asset declaration when he had sold the property he was accused of not declaring.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(i) There was nothing before the lower Court to establish that the title had been transferred from the Respondent to Devertion Properties Ltd of plot 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja accordance with the Law.
(ii) That exhibit D1, D2 and D3 were wrongly admitted inadmissible evidence pursuant to Section 15 of Land Registration ACT Cap 151 LFN, 2004.
(iii) That under the Law, the Respondent is the Lawful Owner of plot 2057 Asokoro District, Abuja.
GROUND THREE
The judgment of the lower Court is unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record”
As can easily be observed, the pith of the complaint in grounds one and two of the appeal is on the appraisal of the facts presented and the assessment of the evidence adduced at the trial, by the
4
Court below in arriving at its decision to allow the Respondent’s appeal. The ground three (3) of the appeal known as the omnibus ground, is one which directly challenges the assessment or evaluation of the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial.
Put together, all the three (3) grounds of the appeal are attacking the appraisal of facts and evaluation of evidence in the case presented at the trial Tribunal, by the Court below and so arc of mixed law and facts, at best.
An appeal from the decisions of the Court below to this Court on grounds other than of law alone or pure law, is not one which can be validly brought as of right by an Appellant under the provisions of Section 233 (3) of the Constitution (as amended). The provisions are that:-
“Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this Section, an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court with leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.”
Sub-Section (2) of the Constitution to which the above provisions are made subject to, stipulate situations in which an appeal from the decision of the Court below to this Court can be
5
validly brought as of right at the instance and discretion of an Appellant in line with statutory procedural prescriptions. Sub-Section 2(a) provides that:-
“(2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases –
(a) Where the ground of appeal involves question of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of appeal.”
This appeal does not fall in and is not within the purview of any of the situations enumerated under sub-section (2) (a) for it to be brought as of right in order to properly invoke the constitutional appellate jurisdiction of this Court to entertain it.
The law is now elementary in this Court that, by dint of the provisions in Section 233 (3) of the Constitution, an appeal from the decisions of the Court below on grounds involving questions of mixed law and facts or facts alone, require the prior leave of either the Court below or of this Court, as condition precedent, for it to be competent and validly brought by an Appellant to enable the Court to properly assume jurisdiction over it. As a condition precedent to the
6
competence and validity of an appeal from the decision of the Court below to this Court, it is therefore necessary and mandatory for the leave of Court to be sought and obtained by an Appellant before bringing or filing the Notice of Appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts or facts alone, as the case may be, in this Court. Failure or omission to obtain such prior leave before bringing or filing a Notice of Appeal in a such situation, constitutes failure to fulfill a condition precedent for the valid exercise of the right of appeal and renders a Notice of appeal brought or filed without the leave, incompetent.
Pronouncements by this Court on the position of law, galore and include Olowosoke v. Oke (1972) 11 SC (Reprint) 1, Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 6 SC (Reprint), 94, Nalsa & Team Associates v. NNPC (1991) 11-12 SC, 83, Kwasau v. Ma’aji (2005) All FWLR (pt. 295) 767, Tiza v. Begha (2001) 5 SC (pt. 11) 1 at 8, Auto Import-Export v. Adebayo (2002) 12 SC (pl. 1) 158, Otu v. ACB, Plc (2008) 1 SC (pt. 11) 1, Yaro v. Arewa Constr. Ltd. (2007) 6 SC (pt. 11) 149. FBN, Plc. v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 1216) 247 (SC),
7
Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 19 NWLR (pt. 12- 26) 54 (SC), Obayuwana v. Adun (2020) 13 NWLR (pt. 1741) 371. Enyibros Food Processing Co. Ltd. v. NDIC (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1800) 559 (SC). Ikponmwen (Rtd) v. Asemola (Rtd) & Anor. (2022) 1 SC (pt. 1) 75, Metroline Nig. Ltd. v. Dikko (2021) 2 NWLR (pt. 1761) 442 (SC).
In this appeal, there is no record that the prior leave of either the Court below or this Court was sought for and obtained by the Appellant before bringing or filing this appeal vide the aforenamed Notice of Appeal. For that reason and in the premises of the above position of the law, the Notice of Appeal is rendered incompetent for failure to obtain the prior leave of Court thereby depriving this Court of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the appeal on the merit. The consequence is that the Notice of Appeal is liable to be struck out for being incompetent and want or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court to entertain the appeal. See Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) SCNLR, 390, Gombe v. PW Nig. Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 402) 402 (SC), Adesokan v. Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR (pt. 346) 540 (SC), Obi v. INEC (2007) 7 SC, 268,
8
Onwuzulike v. State (2020) 10 NWLR (pt. 1731) 91 (SC), Access Bank, Plc. v. Onwuliri (2021) 6 NWLR (pt. 1773) 391 (SC).
Since the law is known, now, that no Court of law in Nigeria, including this Court, has the judicial power and authority to confer or vest itself with jurisdiction over a matter/case or appeal where jurisdiction is statutorily divested and clearly absent, the duty to proceed with a consideration of the appeal on the merit of the issues raised by the parties does not arise because jurisdiction is both intrinsic and extrinsic in judicial proceedings of the Court. F.H. v. Kalejaiye Nig. Ltd. (2010) 19 NWLR (pt. 1226) 147 (SC), Owners of the Mv “Arabele” v. NAIC (2008) 8 MJSC, 145, Okolo v. UBN (2004) 1 SC (pt. 1)1, Ibori v. Agbi (2004) 2 SC (pt. 51), C.G.G. Nig. Ltd. v. Ogu (2005) 2 SC (pt. Il) 50, Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6-7 MJSC (pt. IV) 61, Ports & Cargo Handlings v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6-7 MJSC (pt. IV) 1, PDP v. Sylva (2012) 3 – 4 MJSC, 99, O.C. & P.D. Co. Ltd. v. A. S. Ltd. (2020) 4-5 SC (pt. II) 169, Kushimo v. State (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1801) 147 (SC), Crestar Int. Res. Ltd. v. SPDCN Ltd. (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1800) 453 (SC).<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; scrollbar-color: var(–thumbBG) var(–scrollbarBG);”>
</br<>
9
Perhaps: I should re-state the law that in the clearest of cases: such as in this appeal, the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate over an appeal on the ground of the incompetence of the originating process, i.e. the Notice of Appeal, can properly be raised and decided at the judgment stage by this Court without the need to call for address from the parties. This was the position stated by M. D. Muhammad, JSC in the leading judgment in the case of NNPC v. Roven Shipping Ltd. 2019) 2 SC (pt. 1) 60 at 98 – 99, lines 30 – 35, that:-
“Now, it is beyond contention that the requirement of giving parties the opportunity to address a Court on issue raised by the Court suo motu is a general rule which, like all others, has exceptions. Decisions of this Court abound specifying these exceptions. See Effiom v. C.R.S.l.E.C. (2010) 4 – 7 SC (pt. I) 32; Tukur v. Govt, of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC, 1 and Bola Omoniyi v. Jacob Adegboyega Alabi (2015) 2 SC (pt. Il) 92. It has been held by this Court in these decisions, that the principle that whenever a Court raises an issue not within the contemplation of the parties and suo motu, parties should be
10
given a hearing before a decision on the issue so raised, applied mainly to issues of fact and that, in special circumstances, an issue of law or jurisdiction may be raised suo motu without hearing the parties, decision upon the issue so raised.”
See also Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (supra), Alims Ltd. v. UBA. Plc (2013) 1 SC, 1. Omokuwajo v. FRN (2013) 2 – 3 SC (pt. 1) 184, Ogarv. Igbe (2019) 4-5 SC (pt. III) 1.
The position was affirmed and applied recently by the Court in Ikponmwen (Rtd) v. Asemota (Rtd) (supra), wherein these cases and Okorie v. Udom (1966) 5 FSC, 162, NTA & Ors. v. Anigbo & Ors. (1972) 5 SC (Reprint) 101, Amadi v. Okoli (1977) 7 SC, 57 at 63 were referred to and relied on.
The reason for this position of the law is that once a Court of the law lacks the statutory jurisdiction over a matter or appeal, as the case may be, no amount or quality of address or arguments from the parties can change the position to vest or confer jurisdiction, on the Court since the law remains that the parties, cannot, either by arguments, consent, agreement or condonation vest or confer jurisdiction on a Court where it
11
does not exist or is absent. Osibamowo v. Osibamowo (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 177) 85, Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) All FWLR (pt. 319) 774 (SC), Moses v. State (2006) All FWLR (pt. 322) 1437 (SC), Onwuzulike v. State (supra). Mawo v. Tsintuwa (2020) 2 NWLR (pt. 1708) 306 (SC), Amuda v. FRN (2021) 7 NWLR (pt. 1774) 130 (SC).
In the above circumstances of the appeal, the only valid and proper step to take in the exercise of the Court’s statutory jurisdiction, is to enter an order striking out the incompetent Notice of Appeal upon which the appeal is predicated.
For lack or want of the requisite jurisdiction to do or say more in the appeal, the Notice of Appeal is accordingly struck out for being incompetent.
Parties shall bear their costs of prosecuting the appeal.
Concurring Opinion(s)
— KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.:
I have had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, LAWAL GARBA, JSC just delivered. I agree with him that the Appellants’ three grounds of appeal raise issues of pure fact for which prior leave ought to have been sought and obtained in compliance with Section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The obtaining of leave
12
where leave is required is a condition precedent to the validity of the Notice of Appeal. This is because the Notice of Appeal is the foundation/originating process in an appeal. Where the foundation is faulty the entire edifice built thereon will collapse like a pack of cards. See: Olowosoke Vs Oke (1972) 11 SC 1; Idahosa Vs The State (2021) LPELR – 56607 (SC) @ 4 B-F; Ikponmwen Vs Asemota & Anor. (2022) LPELR – 56594 (SC) @ 23 B – D.
In the circumstances, I agree with his Lordship that the only option open to the Court, is to strike out the notice of appeal filed on 22/6/2017 for being incompetent. It is hereby struck out accordingly. I abide by the order on costs.
Appeal struck out.
— UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.:
The Respondent was charged before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Abuja division, for false declaration of assets contrary to Section 15. Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, LFN, 2004, punishable under Section 23(2) of the Act. He was convicted by the trial Tribunal, but on appeal to the lower Court, he was discharged and acquitted, hence this instant appeal.
I was privileged to read the draft judgment of my learned
13
brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, just delivered. He has dismissed the appeal on incompetent ground of appeal. I endorse same and hold that the appeal is only good for striking out and same is hereby struck out.
— IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.:
My learned brother, the Hon. Justice M.L. Garba, JSC has graciously accorded me the opportunity of reading before now, the draft of the judgment just delivered.
I am in full agreement with the reasoning eloquently postulated in the judgment, to the conclusive effect that the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on June 22, 2017 is grossly incompetent, thus ought to be struck out.
As aptly stated by my learned brother in the judgment, all the three grounds upon which the Notice of Appeal is predicated are attacking the appraisal of facts and evaluation of evidence in the case presented at the trial Tribunal, by the Court below. Thus, the said grounds are at best of mixed law and facts.
Hence, having adopted the reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment, I too unhesitatingly strike out the Notice of Appeal for being devoid of competence.
There shall be no order as to costs.
14
— ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.:
My learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC had before now, given me the privilege of reading in draft, the judgment just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein.
By a combined effect of Section 233(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a criminal appeal to this Court which involves question of mixed law and facts or questions of facts alone and which does not raise questions as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution; or questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person; or which does not stem from a decision in which any person has been sentenced to death by the Court of Appeal or in which the Court of Appeal has affirmed a sentence of death imposed by any other Court; can only be brought by leave of the lower Court or this Court.
As rightly pointed out by my learned brother in the lead judgment, the three grounds of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal are attacking the appraisal of facts and evaluation of evidence. Hence, they are
15
grounds of facts or at best, grounds of mixed law and facts, in respect of which leave of Court must first be sought and obtained. See MEDIA TRUST (NIG) LTD & ORS V. ASHEIKA & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 59621 (SC); AMARAN V. ETF (2022) LPELR – 57288; ADALMA TANKERS BUNKERING SERVICES LTD & ANOR V. CBN & ORS (2022) LPELR – 57036 (SC); WILLIAMS & ANOR V. ADOLD/STAMM INTL (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 56593 (SC); ADAMU V. NIGERIAN AIRFORCE & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 56587 (SC).
Where leave of Court is required to be sought and obtained before filing an action or commencing an appeal, seeking and obtaining the leave is a condition precedent to the commencement of the suit or appeal. Thus, failure to seek and obtain the requisite leave will amount to failure to fulfil a condition precedent to the commencement of the action or appeal, thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon. See FBN PLC V. NIMEX PETROCHEMICALS LTD & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59983 (SC); SPDC (NIG) LTD & ANOR V. TORCHI & ORS (2022) LPELR – 59165 (SC); NWAGBARA V. JADCOM LTD (2021) LPELR – 55329 (SC).
Flowing from the foregoing, it is clear that
16
the three grounds upon which the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was predicated, are incompetent. The attendant effect is that there is in effect no appeal before this Court and all that is left is for the Notice of Appeal to be struck out for being irredeemably incompetent.
It is for the above and the more detailed reasons in the lead judgment that I also strike out the Notice of Appeal for being incompetent.
Notice of Appeal struck out.
17
Dissenting Opinion(s)
None
REFERENCES
Research enhancement — dynamically linked
Referenced Judgments
Access Bank, Plc. v. Onwuliri (2021) 6 NWLR (pt. 1773) 391 (SC) — cited at p. 9
Adamu v. Nigerian Airforce & Anor (2022) LPELR-56587 (SC) — cited at p. 16
Adalma Tankers Bunkering Services Ltd & Anor v. CBN & Ors (2022) LPELR-57036 (SC) — cited at p. 16
Adesokan v. Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR (pt. 346) 540 (SC) — cited at p. 8
Alims Ltd. v. UBA. Plc (2013) 1 SC 1 — cited at p. 11
Amadi v. Okoli (1977) 7 SC 57 — cited at p. 11
Amaran v. ETF (2022) LPELR-57288 — cited at p. 16
Amuda v. FRN (2021) 7 NWLR (pt. 1774) 130 (SC) — cited at p. 12
Auto Import-Export v. Adebayo (2002) 12 SC (pl. 1) 158 — cited at p. 7
Bola Omoniyi v. Jacob Adegboyega Alabi (2015) 2 SC (pt. II) 92 — cited at p. 10
Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 6 SC (Reprint) 94 — cited at pp. 7, 11
C.G.G. Nig. Ltd. v. Ogu (2005) 2 SC (pt. II) 50 — cited at p. 9
Crestar Int. Res. Ltd. v. SPDCN Ltd. (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1800) 453 (SC) — cited at p. 9
Effiom v. C.R.S.I.E.C. (2010) 4-7 SC (pt. I) 32 — cited at p. 10
Enyibros Food Processing Co. Ltd. v. NDIC (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1800) 559 (SC) — cited at p. 8
F.H. v. Kalejaiye Nig. Ltd. (2010) 19 NWLR (pt. 1226) 147 (SC) — cited at p. 9
FBN, Plc. v. Nimex Petrochemicals Ltd & Ors (2023) LPELR-59983 (SC) — cited at p. 16
FBN, Plc. v. T.S.A. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 1216) 247 (SC) — cited at p. 7
Gombe v. PW Nig. Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 402) 402 (SC) — cited at p. 8
Ibori v. Agbi (2004) 2 SC (pt. 51) — cited at p. 9
Idahosa v. The State (2021) LPELR-56607 (SC) — cited at p. 13
Ikponmwen (Rtd) v. Asemota (Rtd) & Anor. (2022) 1 SC (pt. 1) 75; (2022) LPELR-56594 (SC) — cited at pp. 8, 11, 13
Kushimo v. State (2021) 16 NWLR (pt. 1801) 147 (SC) — cited at p. 9
Kwasau v. Ma'aji (2000) All FWLR (pt. 295) 767 — cited at p. 7
Mawo v. Tsintuwa (2020) 2 NWLR (pt. 1708) 306 (SC) — cited at p. 12
Media Trust (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Asheika & Anor (2022) LPELR-59621 (SC) — cited at p. 16
Metroline Nig. Ltd. v. Dikko (2021) 2 NWLR (pt. 1761) 442 (SC) — cited at p. 8
Moses v. State (2006) All FWLR (pt. 322) 1437 (SC) — cited at p. 12
Nalsa & Team Associates v. NNPC (1991) 11-12 SC 83 — cited at p. 7
NNPC v. Roven Shipping Ltd. (2019) 2 SC (pt. 1) 60 — cited at p. 10
NTA & Ors. v. Anigbo & Ors. (1972) 5 SC (Reprint) 101 — cited at p. 11
Nwagbara v. Jadcom Ltd (2021) LPELR-55329 (SC) — cited at p. 16
O.C. & P.D. Co. Ltd. v. A. S. Ltd. (2020) 4-5 SC (pt. II) 169 — cited at p. 9
Obi v. INEC (2007) 7 SC 268 — cited at p. 8
Obayuwana v. Adun (2020) 13 NWLR (pt. 1741) 371 — cited at p. 8
Ogar v. Igbe (2019) 4-5 SC (pt. III) 1 — cited at p. 11
Okolo v. UBN (2004) 1 SC (pt. 1) 1 — cited at p. 9
Okorie v. Udom (1966) 5 FSC 162 — cited at p. 11
Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 19 NWLR (pt. 1226) 54 (SC) — cited at p. 8
Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) SCNLR 390 — cited at p. 8
Olowosoke v. Oke (1972) 11 SC (Reprint) 1 — cited at pp. 7, 13
Omokuwajo v. FRN (2013) 2-3 SC (pt. 1) 184 — cited at p. 11
Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) All FWLR (pt. 319) 774 (SC) — cited at p. 12
Onwuzulike v. State (2020) 10 NWLR (pt. 1731) 91 (SC) — cited at pp. 9, 12
Osibamowo v. Osibamowo (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 177) 85 — cited at p. 12
Otu v. ACB, Plc (2008) 1 SC (pt. 11) 1 — cited at p. 7
Owners of the Mv "Arabele" v. NAIC (2008) 8 MJSC 145 — cited at p. 9
PDP v. Sylva (2012) 3-4 MJSC 99 — cited at p. 9
Ports & Cargo Handlings v. Migfo Nig. Ltd. (2012) 6-7 MJSC (pt. IV) 1 — cited at p. 9
SPDC (Nig) Ltd & Anor v. Torchi & Ors (2022) LPELR-59165 (SC) — cited at p. 16
Tiza v. Begha (2001) 5 SC (pt. 11) 1 — cited at p. 7
Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC 1 — cited at p. 10
Ugba v. Suswam (2012) 6-7 MJSC (pt. IV) 61 — cited at p. 9
Williams & Anor v. Adold/Stamm Intl (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2022) LPELR-56593 (SC) — cited at p. 16
Yaro v. Arewa Constr. Ltd. (2007) 6 SC (pt. 11) 149 — cited at p. 7
Referenced Statutes
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 233(2), 233(2)(a), 233(3), Chapter IV — cited at pp. 5-6, 15
Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Cap C15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Sections 15, 23(2) — cited at pp. 1
