The appellant by way of  originating summons , instituted an action against the defendants(respondents) who are executors and executrix  of the Will of a Testatrix , Late Alhaja Adijatu  Ayoola Balogun  who was a client of the appellant. The appellant’s claim was that, the probate fees on the said Will and her professional fees be paid from the Testatrix account at Afribank. The trial court found for the appellant (who was the applicant at the trial court) ,while  the Court of appeal and  the  Supreme Court found for the respondents.

Subject Matter:


Wills.-Only the executors and the executrix –the beneficiaries- of a Will can administer the estate  conferred therein.

Wills-Services of a solicitor to a Will, what determines the scope and point of termination.

Locus Standi– What determines the competence  or right of a party to institute an action.

Practice and Procedure: Only non- contentious matters should be brought to court through  Originating Summons

Click Here to View Case




CRIMINAL LAW -ARMED ROBBERY –SECTION 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions ) Act

EVIDENCE: Proof in Criminal cases -beyond reasonable doubt

EVIDENCE: Discrepancy in the evidence, how the court treats same

EVIDENCE: Section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act on “evidence which could and was not produced” in court). Not helpful to the accused.

EVIDENCE: Consistency of the evidence adduced by the accused and the prosecution witnesses. How helpful to the prosecution.

ARMED ROBBERY: Statutorily and judicially defined.

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE: Concurrent findings of fact of trial and appellate courts – where perversity is not shown

Click Here to View Case



The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff in the Federal High Court, Lagos sued the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents as 1st to 4th defendants for breach of contract of carriage of goods by sea. In the trial Court the plaintiff brought an application to join the appellant as the 5th defendant. The Court granted the application, but before trial commenced struck out the name of the 5th defendant suo motu. The case proceeded and at the end the plaintiff lost. On appeal, the plaintiff, now the appellant, filed an interlocutory application to join the appellant in this interlocutory appeal as 5th defendant. Firstly, the application was refused on procedural defect. Plaintiff/Appellant amended his Notice of Appeal and brought a second application for joinder of this appellant as 5th Respondent. The application was granted and the appellant in this appeal was joined as the 5th Respondent in the substantive appeal. Aggrieved the 5th Respondent filed this interlocutory appeal in the Supreme Court against been joined in the substantive appeal.


Parties : Joinder of Parties – Whether appropriate on appeal

Parties:  Joinder of Parties  –  Who is a necessary party

Parties : Striking out of a Party – Whether appropriate for the court to do so suo motu

Practice and Procedure : When a court can overrule itself on the same matter.

“The reason for making a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action. Consequently the question to be settled in the action must be one which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party… Joinder is necessary, to ensure that proper parties are before the Court for determining the point in issue. Application to join may be made at anytime”

– per Bode Rhodes–Vivour, JSC.

Click Here to View Case



Court of Appeal, suo motu at the point of judgment, raised the issue that there was no application for extension of time as prescribed by the court of appeal Act Cap 75 LFN 1990 before the appeal was filed. Therefore Notice and grounds of appeal were held incompetent and consequently struck out.


Practice and Procedure: Raising and deciding issues suo motu by the court

Practice and Procedure : Duty of court to adjudicate base on its records.

Fair hearing: Effect of refusing parties or counsel to address the court on an issue before the court prior to the judgment of the court

“On no account should a court of law raise a point suo motu, no matter how clear it may appear to be, and proceed to resolve the case between the parties thereon without inviting them or counsel on their behalf to address the court on the point. If it does so, it will be in breach of a party’s fundamental right to fair hearing…”


Click Here to View Case


Subject Matter:

Appeals: Raising of fresh issues on appeal – what an appellate court should consider.

Appeals:  Withdrawal of notice of appeal – Consent of respondents whether essential.

Appeals:  Application of Order 8 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended)

Practice and Procedure: Inherent power of a court to make consequential orders.

Practice and Procedure: Power of the Supreme Court to curb abuse of court process

Practice and Procedure: Multiplicity of actions or appeals by same party through forum shopping – effect of same

Practice and Procedure: Inherent power of the Supreme Court to order abatement of action in the Court of appeal to prevent judicial ridicle

“An application or Notice to withdraw an appeal once refused can be filed again with better reasons for the application, or to withdraw unilaterally. The question of the Court being functus officio or the second application amounting to relitigating does not arise … To my mind, when an appellant gives notice of his intention to withdraw his appeal, he should be granted his prayer and not be compelled to continue with the appeal. It will be contrary to public policy for an appellant not to be allowed to withdraw his appeal.”

– per  Bode Rhodes-Vivour JSC

Click Here To View Case

First Bank of Nigeria Plc V. T.S.A Industries Limited

Subject Matter

Supremacy of the Constitution, Compliance with Court Rules and Natural Justice

Practice and Procedure – Effect of procedural nonfeasance or misfeasance of counsel

Appeal – Grounds of Appeal – Clarification of grounds of appeal; whether of law, or mixed law and fact

“I agree with the reasoning and view of the appellant. That a citizen’s right to an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made against him in a suit to which he is a party is of fundamental and constitutional nature that ought not to be taken from him simply because of the procedural error of his counsel, his opponent or the Court registry, particularly when it does not fundamentally affect the opposing side.”

– per O.O Adekeye, J.S.C

Click here to view case

Bernard Amasike V.The Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission & Anor

Subject Matter:

Company Law and Practice

Discretion: The absolute discretion of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to reject the reservation of names it is satisfied are unregistrable  under sections 30,31,32,376 and 674 of the Company And Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990

Procedure: Concurrent findings of fact of lower courts – when the Supreme Court will not tamper with same.

Procedure: Originating Summons should be used only when the facts of a case or matter are not in dispute and non contentious.

Procedure: Mistake or error in a judgment – when same is insufficient for the appellate court to nullify the judgment.

“A public body or authority vested with statutory powers must act within the law and take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority given to it. It must act in good faith and reasonably. Where a person or public body or authority claims to have acted pursuant to a power granted by a statute, such person, body or authority must justify the act, if challenged, by showing that the statute applied in the circumstances and that he or it was empowered to act under it.”

– per Adekeye JSC

Click here to view case

Alhaja Silifatu Omotayo V.Cooperative Supply Association

Subject Matter:

Land Law – Trespass to Land – Proof of evidence

Procedure: Order of injunction – Circumstances where the court will grant an injunction.

Damages – Where the Court can award damages on trespass to Land

Title to Land: Situations where a Licencee denies or challenges the title of the Landlord

Concurrent findings of facts: Where not disturbed by the Supreme Court

“It is settled that a Claim for trespass, is not dependent on a declaration of title.

Afterwards trespass, is an injury to a possessory right and therefore, the proper plaintiff in an action for trespass to Land, is the person who was or who is deemed to have been in possession at the time of the trespass.”


Click here to view case