LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Intermediate Courts – Duty to Decide All Issues
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Unless in the clearest of cases, an intermediate court should endeavour to resolve all issues put before it. There are decided cases of this court which enjoin a trial court even where it has dismissed an action to consider and pronounce on the quantum of damages to be awarded in the event of the plaintiff finally succeeding. The continuance of this practice cannot be too strongly deprecated.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) NLC-1261995(SC) at p. 21; Paras C–E.
"Unless in the clearest of cases, an intermediate court should endeavour to resolve all issues put before it. There are decided cases of this court which enjoin a trial court even where it has dismissed an action to consider and pronounce on the quantum of damages to be awarded in the event of the plaintiff finally succeeding. The continuance of this practice cannot be too strongly deprecated."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Intermediate appellate courts should resolve all issues properly raised, not just dispositive ones, unless the case is exceptionally clear. This enables the final appellate court to benefit from the intermediate court’s views on all points. The practice of trial courts speculating on damages after dismissing an action is strongly deprecated—courts should decide only issues necessary to the disposition. Reserving issues unnecessarily fragments litigation and undermines judicial efficiency. Comprehensive adjudication at each level promotes finality and reduces appellate burden.