PURPOSE OF FRAMING OR RE-FRAMING AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION  

 

Admin2
Joined: 12 months ago
Posts: 168
23/06/2020 11:01 am  
"It is hornbook law that a Court can and is entitled to re-formulate issues formulated by the parties or counsel in order to make for precision and clarity.

 

In the words of Uwaifo, JSC in Musa Sha (Jnr) vs. Da Rap Kwan (2000) 5 SCNJ 101 at 127:

 

The purpose of framing or re-framing an issue or issues, it is stated: is to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. The purpose of re-formulating it or them, is in order to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity.

 

See also Unity Bank Plc vs. Bouari (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 416) 1825 at 1846-1847.

 

The expansive issue, which is not an alternative to the issues crafted by parties, but is rather cumulative with the said issues: Sanusi vs. Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (PT 237) 527 at 550-551 and Neka B. B. B. Manufacturing Ltd vs. A.C.B. Ltd (2004) 17 NSCQR 240 at 250-251.
 
 
- PER U. A. OGAKWU, J.C.A IN AIWO KUPOLATI VS MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

suit no: CA/L/743/2017

 
Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 36785
 



Quote
Admin2
Joined: 12 months ago
Posts: 168
23/06/2020 11:02 am  

Summary Of Fact:


The Appellant, a Legal Practitioner and post-paid customer of the Respondent, contended that the Respondent breached its contractual obligations to him when, for a cumulative period of thirty-one (31) days, it blocked/disconnected his said GSM Line No. 0803-720-0757 without any justification, consequent upon which he suffered enormous frustration, hardship, inconveniences, loss of income and economic loss; causing him to institute proceedings before the High Court of Lagos State, in Suit No. LD/1666/2012: Taiwo Kupolati vs. MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd.

The Appellant claimed a declaration that the blocking/disconnection of his phone line without justification was wrongful and a breach of the contractual obligations, which the Respondent owes him; award of 50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general and exemplary damages against the Respondent and cost of litigation.

At the end of the trial, the Court found and held that the Respondent was in breach of its contract with the Appellant when it blocked/disconnected the Appellants said GSM line.

It then proceeded to award the sum of N1, 000,000.00 to assuage the Appellant for the frustration, hardship and inconvenience occasioned by the wrongful disconnection of his said GSM line for the cumulative period of thirty-one (31) days.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of damages awarded by the Lower Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal only on that ground.

There is no complaint about the decision that the Respondent was in breach of contract.


ReplyQuote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
288988
Views Today
Views Today
132