LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Duty of Appellate Court – Intermediate Court of Appeal – Duty to Resolve All Issues Placed Before It
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
This approach to the issues placed before the court is, to say the least, unfortunate. The course taken, while permissible with the final Court of Appeal is not always the proper course for an intermediate court to take. Unless in the clearest of cases, an intermediate court should endeavour to resolve all issues put before it. There must be, and there are a number of cases where it is most desirable, especially in the case of an intermediate court of appeal, that the final Court of Appeal, which is the Supreme Court of Nigeria, should have the benefit of the opinion of that court on points raised before it, should it come up for further consideration by this court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Ltd. v. Soleh Boneh Ltd. (2000) NLC-741994(SC) at p. 14; Paras A–D.
"This approach to the issues placed before the court is, to say the least, unfortunate. The course taken, while permissible with the final Court of Appeal is not always the proper course for an intermediate court to take. Unless in the clearest of cases, an intermediate court should endeavour to resolve all issues put before it. There must be, and there are a number of cases where it is most desirable, especially in the case of an intermediate court of appeal, that the final Court of Appeal, which is the Supreme Court of Nigeria, should have the benefit of the opinion of that court on points raised before it, should it come up for further consideration by this court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Intermediate appellate courts (like the Court of Appeal) should generally resolve all issues properly placed before them, unlike the final appellate court which may decide on a single dispositive issue. Resolving all issues enables the Supreme Court, on further appeal, to benefit from the intermediate court’s considered opinion on all points. This facilitates efficient final adjudication and prevents remittals on issues not addressed. Only in the clearest cases—where one issue is obviously dispositive—should an intermediate court refrain from resolving others. This promotes judicial economy and comprehensive appellate review.