'A COURT HAS INHERENT POWERS TO REFRAME, EXPAND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION'

By Lawrence Udo Edet

When a Judge reframes, clarifies or expands an existing issue based on the evidence already presented, the Court is simply exercising its inherent power to evaluate the case holistically.

Courts are established to do substantial justice, so should not be blinded by rigid or narrow framing of issues by Counsel. Reframing or expanding an issue stemming from the evidence of the parties ensures that the core substantive dispute, as revealed by the evidence, is resolved accurately. See ADEMOK CONTINENTAL LTD. & ANOR. vs. OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT(2022)LCN/16005(CA).

RAISING ISSUE SUO MOTU
Whether an issue expanded by the Court to accommodate a question disclosed by facts and evidence already in the record for an integral consideration of the case before it is raised suo motu

PRINCIPLE
“The quiddity of the contention under this issue is that the lower Court formulated the issue on which it determined the action suo motu and that it did not invite the parties to address it on the said issue. It is rudimentary law that a Court should not raise an issue suo motu and unilaterally resolve it without hearing the parties, particularly the party that may be adversely affected by the issue raised.” See OSHODI vs. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR (PT. 684) 298 at 332; MOJEKWU vs. IWUCHUKWU (2004) LPELR (1903) 1 at 25 and LEADERS & COMPANY LTD. vs. BAMAIYI (2010) LPELR (1771) 1 at 11-12.

But did the lower Court raise any issue suo motu?

From the extant pleadings of the parties, the Amended Statement of Claim and the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Defence, the parties were at issue on the propriety of the Government White Paper which expropriated and divested the 1st Appellant of its land. Indeed, the Appellants claimed a declaration that the title to the land was still valid and subsisting and for an order that the White Paper which divested the 1st Appellant of its right and interest in the land is null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. So, on the facts placed before the lower Court on the pleadings, it was in issue whether the 1st Appellant’s title over the land was still subsisting and the effect of the White Paper on the said title.

Without a doubt, the first issue distilled for determination at the Pre-Trial Conference was an interrogation of whether the 1st Appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy over the land was validly issued. The lower Court was cognisant of the issues agreed upon at the pre-trial and duly set them out in the Judgment at page 560 of the Records. But then, well aware of the relief claimed in respect of the divestment of the 1st Appellant’s interest in the land, the lower Court recognised that the question had been placed before it and that it was bound to decide and pronounce upon the same.

Consequently, it stated that the first issue formulated at pre-trial would have to be considered in two parts in order to accommodate the alleged expropriation of the 1st Appellant’s land by the Government White Paper. (See page 560 of the Records). The lower Court then proceeded to state as follows at page 561 of the records: “In effect, the 1st issue for determination, which is in two parts, is whether the certificate of occupancy was validly issued; if yes, whether it is still subsisting or has been validly cancelled or the land validly expropriated (as alleged by the claimants)”.

The law remains settled beyond peradventure that a Court is bound to make a pronouncement on the disparate contentions placed by the parties before it and their effect on the action and the reliefs claimed. See EJOWHOMU vs. EDOK-ETER MANDILAS LTD. (1986) 9 SC 41 at 102-103; AKINTOLA vs. SOLANO (1986) LPELR (360) 1; MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC vs. NMA (2012) LPELR (20618) 1 at 27; ADEBAYO vs. A-G OGUN STATE (2008) LPELR (80) 1 at 17 and NKUMA vs. ODILI (2006) LPELR (2047) 1 at 17.

In the circumstances, the lower Court, expanding the issue distilled at pre-trial to accommodate the question of alleged expropriation by the Government White Paper which was properly raised in the pleadings and evidence before it, is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is an integral consideration of the case made out by the parties. See USIOBAIFO vs. USIOBAIFO (supra).

In aliis verbis, the lower Court, drawing the necessary inferences from the materials before it is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is the lower Court discharging its adjudicatory functions by making inferences and reaching conclusions from the facts before it. In IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD. vs. A-G RIVERS STATE (2008) 6 NWLR (PT. 1084) 612 at 642 or (2008) LPELR (1476) 1 at 28-29 Tobi, JSC, stated: “A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu if the issue, matter or fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences, the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu. That is not correct.”

Also in ENEKWE vs. IMB LTD. (2006) LPELR (1140) 1 at 25 Tobi, JSC, stated: “A Judge has the right in our adjectival law to use particular words or phrases, which in his opinion, are germane to … facts of the case. In so far as he does that in line with the evidence before him, it will be unfair for counsel to castigate him or accuse him of raising issue suo motu.”

Furthermore, in OTU vs. ANI (2013) LPELR (21405) 1 at 31-34, Garba, JCA (now JSC) quipped: “… It is clear that so long as the issue is derivable from the facts and evidence of the parties before the Court, the Court cannot be said to have raised it suo motu for reason only that it used particular words or phrases not used by the parties to describe the issue.” See also SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD. vs. OYEBOLA (2020) LPELR (51806) 1 at 75-79; TOWOJU vs. GOV. OF KWARA STATE (2005) LPELR (5390) 1 at 38-39; CHIDI vs. CONSOLIDATED HALLMARK INSURANCE PLC (2018) LPELR (44384) 1 at 16-24; TSEGBA vs. REGD. TRUSTEES OF MISSION HOUSE (2018) LPELR (44242) 1 at 51-52; FCMB vs. ACTION ALLIANCE (2018) LPELR (44445) 1 at 10-11 and FINNIH vs. IMADE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 219) 511 at 537.

“Accordingly, it is a misappreciation and misapprehension of the proper discharge by the lower Court of its duty, that the Appellants misconstrued as the lower Court raising an issue suo motu. No. The lower Court did not raise any issue suo motu. It merely discharged its duty of considering and pronouncing upon all the facts disclosed by the evidence and placed before it by the parties. Indubitably, this issue number one must perforce be resolved against the Appellants,” Per OGAKWU, JCA.

Leave a Reply