LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Failure to Consider Issues – Whether Constitutes Denial of Fair Hearing
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The failure by the lower court to consider the said issue 2 in the present case would not ipso facto be taken as the type of lack of fair hearing under natural justice or section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution to which reference was made in the Nwaokolo case with the consequence that a miscarriage of justice would be conclusively presumed, or even inferred at all, without more. It has to be demonstrated that such a failure, which in essence may be nothing more than inadequate consideration of the appeal presented by the appellant before the lower court, was in a particular case a fundamental vice associated with lack of fair hearing.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Bamaiyi v. State & Ors (2001) NLC-2922000(SC) at p. 8; Paras B–D.
"The failure by the lower court to consider the said issue 2 in the present case would not ipso facto be taken as the type of lack of fair hearing under natural justice or section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution to which reference was made in the Nwaokolo case with the consequence that a miscarriage of justice would be conclusively presumed, or even inferred at all, without more. It has to be demonstrated that such a failure, which in essence may be nothing more than inadequate consideration of the appeal presented by the appellant before the lower court, was in a particular case a fundamental vice associated with lack of fair hearing."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Failure to consider an issue does not automatically constitute denial of fair hearing. The appellant must demonstrate that the failure was a fundamental vice associated with lack of fair hearing—not merely inadequate consideration. Miscarriage of justice is not conclusively presumed. The circumstances of each case determine whether the failure amounts to a constitutional breach. Mere omission to address an issue may be an error, but not necessarily a denial of fair hearing. The court examines whether the appellant was genuinely deprived of the opportunity to present their case. The principle prevents automatic reversal for every omission; substantial prejudice must be shown.
