CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ā Court of Appeal ā Judgment ā Validity ā Requirement for Written Opinions of All Justices Who Heard the Appeal
Principle Statement
For a judgment of the Court of Appeal to be valid and complete, all Justices who heard the appeal must reduce their judgments or opinions to writing before the judgment is delivered, as required by Section 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution. A judgment delivered without the written opinion of any of the Justices who heard the appeal is incomplete and invalid.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Sokoto State Govt & Ors v. Kamdex Nigeria Limited (2007) NLC-123-74-2004(SC) at p. 12; Paras DāE.
"The judgment is not a complete judgment of the Court of Appeal because one of the Justices who heard the appeal had not reduced his judgment or opinion in writing capable of being delivered on the day fixed for the delivery as required by sub-section (2) of section 294 of the 1999 Constitution which makes it necessary for the judgments or opinions of the three Justices who heard the appeal to be produced in writing before a complete judgment could validly emerge."
Explanation / Scope
The principle flows from the constitutional requirement for the delivery of judgments in writing. Section 294(2) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that every court of record shall deliver its decision in writing, with each member of the panel producing a separate opinion or concurring with the lead judgment. The written opinions must exist and be ready before the delivery date. If a Justice who heard the appeal has not reduced his opinion to writing, the judgment is incomplete and cannot be validly delivered. This requirement ensures transparency, accountability, and the ability to review the reasoning of each Justice. The defect cannot be cured by the lead judgment alone. The principle safeguards the integrity of appellate decisions.
