LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Judgment — Form of Judgment — Failure to Set Out Issues Seriatim Not Fatal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A judgment is not bad because the judge did not set out seriatim his reasons on each specific complaint; a judgment is flawed only if a vital issue is left unresolved.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Agu v. Nnadi (2002) NLC-1541998(SC) at p. 8; Para A.
"Granted that there is no rule of law or practice that dictates the form of a judgment or prescribes that a judgment is flawed unless it is in a particular form, a judgment is flawed if a vital issue in the case is left unresolved. Whether a vital issue has been left unresolved, however, depends on what the essential issues in the case are and how the court has dealt with them. A judgment is not bad because the Judge had not set out seriatim his reasons on each of the specific complaints."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
No rule prescribes a specific form for judgments. A judgment is not flawed merely because reasons are not set out seriatim. The test is whether vital issues were resolved. The judgment is bad only if a vital issue is left unresolved. The principle promotes substance over form. The court may present its reasoning in any coherent manner. The appellant must show that a material issue was not addressed. The rule applies to all judgments. The court will not reverse for mere stylistic deficiencies. The judgment must be intelligible and show the court’s reasoning. The principle ensures that technicalities do not defeat justice.
