Effect of Failure of Court to Consider all Issues Raised Before it

CASE TITLE: MONGUNO v. BLUEWHALES & CO. & ORS (2023) LPELR-59997(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD MARCH, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the duty of Court to pronounce on all issues raised before it.

FACTS:

The instant appeal is a natural fall-out of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, delivered on May 13th, 2010 in appeal No. CA/A/227/2009. By the judgment in question, the Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the judgment of the trial High Court, delivered on June, 24, 2009 in suit No. CV/1293/07.

The Appellant made a case at the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeal did not pronounce on certain salient issues before it in the determination of the appeal and that this failure meant that the Court of Appeal had deprived the Appellant of the right to fair hearing. The main point raised by the Appellant was that the Court of Appeal refused to hear her own side of the story and breached one of the twin pillars of fair hearing which is audi alteram partem- hear the other side, before arriving at its decision.

ISSUES:

The Court considered the merit of the Appellant’s grouse.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside. The appeal was sent back to the President of the Court of Appeal to be assigned to a different panel for expeditious hearing on the merit.

RATIOS:

• COURT – DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to consider all issues raised before it; exceptions thereto
• COURT – DUTY OF COURT: Duty of all Courts lower in hierarchy to the Supreme Court to consider and pronounce on all issues raised before it; effect of failure
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – ORDER OF RETRIAL/TRIAL DE NOVO: Distinction between an order of retrial and trial de novo

Click here to log in to your Dashboard to see more judgments. To subscribe, go to store.lawpavilion.com