WHETHER A COURT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IS NULL AND VOID?

-

WHETHER A COURT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD OF 90 DAYS IS NULL AND VOID? 

by Branham Chima. 


✓ ANSWER: 

Every Court created by the Constitution must provide its decision in writing within 90 days after all evidence and final address have been presented. Vide: section 294(1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 

If the 90 days period is elapsed, the nullification of the judgement will depend on whether any miscarriage of justice resulted due to the delay in the delivering of the judgment. 

This point was highlighted in Sifax (Nig.) Ltd. v. Phoenix Capital Ltd. & Anor. (2023) LPELR-59979(SC), per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC, on this point stated thus: ‘It is not the law, as contended by the Appellant, that the length of the delay outside the Constitutional 90 days is not taken into consideration in determining whether the trial Court lost its impression of the case at the time of judgment; instead, the authorities are consistent that both the length of delay and the reason given by the Court for the delay should be taken into account. See EGBO v. AGBARA (SUPRA). Consequently, a five-day delay as in the case, and a one month delay cannot weigh the same on the scale of inference. Impressions on human memory are time-factored, although time alone cannot justify the nullification of the judgment except the time delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice. In STATE v. USMAN (2005) 1 NWLR Pt. 906 Pg.80, a delay of eight months from the time the case was set down for judgment was held not enough to earn a nullification of the judgment. In MIKA'ILU v. STATE (SUPRA), a judgment delivered seven months after address was upheld on the ground that the Appellant could not demonstrate that he suffered a miscarriage of justice. There is nothing to show ex facie that the judgment which was delivered outside the 90 days has invoked the likelihood of loss of impression or that there was anything other than the few days’ disruption caused by the retreat, an essential occasion for the proper and quality administration of justice. The cases of AMIZU v. NZERIBE (SUPRA) and DIBIAMAKA v. OSAKWE (SUPRA) cited by learned Appellant’s Counsel predate the 1999 Constitution and are irrelevant for consideration in this case. In fact that there is nothing which could support the contention that the Appellant suffered any miscarriage of justice as a result of the five days delay in delivering the judgment which would make it unconstitutional and result in the nullification of the judgment under Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right in resolving the issue against the Appellant.’ 

Further vide: section 294(5) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). 

Comments

Post a Comment

What are your thoughts?

Popular posts from this blog

WHEN IS AN APPEAL DEEMED ENTERED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL?

-
WHEN IS AN APPEAL DEEMED ENTERED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL? by Branham Chima. Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed An appeal is considered to be officially submitted to the Court of Appeal when the records of the previous court’s proceedings are received by the Court of Appeal. Once an appeal has been submitted and until it is finally resolved, the Court of Appeal will have control over the entire case between the involved parties. Unless stated otherwise in the Rules, all applications related to the case must be made to the Court of Appeal and not to the original trial Court. However, it is possible to file an application in the trial Court for it to be transferred to the Court of Appeal. The above position was encapsulated in the National Industrial Court case of Ayangbade v. UBA (NICN/YL/05M/2020, 9th February 2021) per Kado J. thus: ‘the counsel for the judgment creditor/respondent has also contended that no appeal has been entered before the court of appeal. Let m...
Read more

WHETHER CONFLICTING FACTS CAN BE PLEADED WHERE ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT?

-
WHETHER CONFLICTING FACTS CAN BE PLEADED WHERE ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT?  by Branham Chima.  ✓ DEFINITION(S):  • Conflicting facts: refer to contradictory or opposing pieces of information or evidence that are presented. It occurs when different sources, perspectives, or accounts provide inconsistent or conflicting details about a specific matter or issue.  • Pleaded: When a person pleads, they are presenting their case or defense to the court, either admitting or denying the allegations against them. The plea can be made orally or in writing, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the legal proceedings. The term "pleaded" is commonly used to describe the past action of making a plea.  • Alternative reliefs: refer to different forms of remedies or outcomes that a party seeks in a legal proceeding as alternatives to each other. By seeking alternative reliefs, a party acknowledges that there may be multiple ways to address their conc...
Read more

OBITER DICTA OF THE ULTIMATE COURT ON IMPORTANT POINTS ARE BINDING ON LOWER COURT

-
OBITER DICTA OF THE ULTIMATE COURT ON IMPORTANT POINTS ARE BINDING ON LOWER COURT by Branham Chima.  Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed  Obiter dictum, or incidental remarks by a judge that are not binding, play an important role in legal opinions. Generally, lower courts are not obligated to follow obiter dictum. However, there is an exception: when the ultimate court makes an obiter dictum on an important point of law, it becomes binding and must be followed by all lower courts. This exception ensures consistency and uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law across the judicial hierarchy.  This position was affirmed in the case of Bennett Ifediorah & Ors. V. Ben Ume & Ors. (1988) per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC thus: ‘Although this opinion was given in a criminal appeal, it has been followed and applied by the Court of Appeal in many civil appeals against interlocutory decisions. See for an example Akinsola Dawodu & Anor. v. F. O. Olo...
Read more