When Supreme Court Gets To The Crossroads By: Abdulrasheed Ibrahim

If parties to a dispute fight their legal battle from the lowest court in the land , there is no way they can go beyond the Supreme Court whose decision is final. Supreme Court is made up of learned Jurists who are very wise and knowledgeable. The Justices of Supreme Court of any country including ours are meant to give final judgements and to borrow the words of the great Lord Denning that: “In their judgments you will find passages which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature which England holds.” Despite the high level of wisdom and knowledge in possession of our Supreme Court Jurists, they have never been arrogant or claimed monopoly of knowledge. The Supreme Court over the years has demonstrated great humility in many of the thorny cases brought before it. Whenever the Supreme Court arrives crossroads in any case before it, it resorts to the invitation of Amicus Curiae before taking any particular direction. What do we mean by Amicus Curiae and when does the Supreme Court resort to it? According to the great late Chief F.R.A. Williams (SAN): “Amicus Curiae or friend of court is a lawyer whether from the Bar or from our universities who is sufficiently knowledgeable to contribute meaningfully to the debate on any particular aspect of the legal issues which arise for consideration and decision by the court.” In the case of ADISA Vs. OYINWOLA (2000) 6 SCNJ where the words “exclusive jurisdiction” and “unlimited jurisdiction” respectively used to qualify the High Court in Section 39 (1) of Land Use Act 1978 and Section 236 (1) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as to the power of the High court to entertain land matter under the Section 41 of the Land Use Act vis a- vis the power of the Area Court or Customary Court or other courts of equivalent jurisdiction to entertain proceeding on a customary right of occupancy became very big issues. The appellant in the case equally called upon the Supreme Court to overrule and depart from its previous decisions in the cases of SALATI Vs. SHEHU (1986) ALL NLR ,53 76; SADIKWU Vs. DOLARI (1996) 4 SCNJ 20, (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 447) 151 and OYEDIRAN Vs. EGBETOLA (1997) 5 SCNJ 94, (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 122. In those cases, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on customary right of occupancy. In facing this big challenge, the Supreme Court first and foremost invited Amicus Curiae, in the words of Hon. Justice Ayoola who read the lead judgment in ADISA Vs. OYINWOLA (supra) : “The position taken by the learned counsel to the plaintiffs found ample support in the well research and helpful submissions of Mr. Kanu G. Agabi, SAN , Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Kehinde Sofola, SAN, Mr. Clement Akpamgbo, SAN, Mr. Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN and Mr. Awa Kalu, Attorney General of Abia State who all appeared on the invitation of the court as amicus curiae. Since there is considerable unanimity in their submissions which cover substantially the same grounds, what can be regarded as the common ground in the submissions can be stated without diminishing from the weight and cogency of the individual submissions. ” Eventually, the Supreme Court in departing and overruling its decision in OYEDIRAN Vs EGBETOLA (supra) had this to say per Ayoola, JSC: “In my judgment the decision of this court in Oyediran Vs. Egbetola (supra) was erroneous and made per incuriam. This court should not be bound by that decision which would create much unnecessary problems and difficulties in States where Area Courts and Customary Courts or courts of equivalent jurisdiction do not exist and may lead some State Governors to resort to designating land in all areas of the State as urban land contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act. I hold that the High Court had jurisdiction to try proceedings and resolve the jurisdictional issue against the defendant.” Hon. Justice Ogundare in his concurring judgment in thanking all the amicus curiae which also included Hon. Dr. Yemi Kayode Adedeji , the then Attorney General of Osun State said: “I hereby express the deep appreciation of this court for the invaluable assistance they rendered. Their contributions have assisted the court in no small measure in the resolution of the task before it.” In the case of MARWA Vs. NYAKO (2012) 1 SC (Pt. III), the Supreme Court was again at crossroads and had to invite Amicus Curiae to assist it in the task. In this case some Governors who were serious in love with power approached the court for the elongation of their tenures. Admiral Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State, Mr. Timipre Sylva of Bayelsa State, Mr. Liyel Imoke of Cross-River, Alhaji Aliyu Wamako of Sokoto State and Alhaji Ibrahim Idris won elections in 2007 into their various States as Governors and were sworn in on 29th May 2007 .Their electoral victories were subsequently successful challenged and re-run elections were ordered by the courts. The re-run elections took placed at different dates and they won those re-run elections and were again re-sworn in for the second time respectively. Those Governors later approached the court asking for their 4 years term in office to commence from the date of their second swearing in and not at the date first swearing in. This again became a very big issue before the Supreme Court . Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen , JSC (as he then was but now the CJN) who read the lead judgment had this to say: “To assist the Court in resolving this issue and due to national importance the Court attaches to the issue in question, the Court invited the following learned Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) to file briefs and also appear and present their arguments, as amicus curiae. They are CHIEF RICHARD AKINJIDE, SAN; OLUKONYINSOLA AJAYI, SAN and PROF. ITSE SAGAY, SAN.” The Supreme Court having heard the contributions of the amicus curiae, came up with its final decision per Hon. Justice Onnoghen thus: “It is settled law that the time fixed by the constitution for doing of anything cannot be extended .It is immutable, fixed like Rock of Gibraltar; it cannot be extended, elongated, expanded, or stretched beyond what it states. To calculate the tenure of office of Governors from the date of their second oaths of allegiance and of office while ignoring the period from 29th May 2007,when they took this first oaths is to extend the four years tenure constitutionally granted the Governors to occupy and the act in that office which would be unconstitutional. It is therefore clear and I hereby hold that the second oaths of allegiance and of office taken in 2008 ,though necessary to enable them continue to function in that office ,were superfluous in the determination of the four years tenure under section 180 (2) of the 1999 constitution.” The learned jurist in line with the tradition of the court appreciated greatly the amicus curiae: “I however take this opportunity to thank the legal luminaries who accepted the invitation of this court to act as Amicus Curiae and availed the court of their views which have, in no small way, helped to resolved the thorny constitutional issues which had heated up the polity for quite some time now.” I think the lesson for all the practitioners of law in this narration is that we should all be humble in knowledge and wisdom. The Supreme Court despite being the custodian of law and jurisprudence never shies away from seeking the views of others whenever it becomes necessary. In the book LEGAL LUMINARIES it was said about the late His Excellency Judge Taslim Olawale Elias (GCON) that what he did not know in law does not worth knowing. This may be a great testimony to prove how erudite a man is but the fact still remains no human being can claim monopoly of knowledge which is the reason why Lord Denning was right when he said: “God forbid that a lawyer should know all the laws. But God forbid that a lawyer should not know where to find the law…” REMARKABLE PRONOUNCEMENT ON POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO OVERRULE ITSELF “We are final not because we are infallible , rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will be certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decision; similarly, the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore, it appears to the learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be overruled. This court has power to overrule itself (and has done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is better to admit an error than to persevere in error” . Per OPUTA, JSC in Adegoke Vs. Adesanya (1989 ) 4 NWLR (Pt. 109) at 274-275 THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW On whether failure to challenge the evidence of plaintiff entitled him to judgment It is not a general rule that whenever the evidence tendered by the plaintiff is unchallenged or uncontradicted, the plaintiff is automatically entitled to judgment. The evidence adduced must bear relevance to the facts pleaded and the issued joined. It must be remembered that a plaintiff may lose his case where the defendant has not even appeared to challenge or contradict the evidence tendered if such evidence does not support the facts pleaded or where the statement of claim itself is contradictory or defective. See Nwogu Vs. Njoku (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 140) 570 at 573; Nwabuoku Vs. Ottih (1961) 2 SCNLR 232; (1961) ALL NLR 487; ABDULLAHI Vs. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 214) Pg. 123 Paras G-H For more Settled Principles of Law and Remarkable Pronouncements from our Supreme Court Jurists from 1956-2016, obtain or order for your copies of LAW PRACTICE KIT and LEGAL LUMINARIES. Call or text 08055476823, 08164683735 or email:rasheedibraheem68@yahoo.com. Your library is incomplete without these books.]]>