DUTY OF COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS  

 

Admin2
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 165
09/06/2020 3:11 pm  
"It has become notorious that for a Court to exercise its discretionary power, such discretion must not only be exercised judicially but judiciously. I am equally not unmindful of the settled concept that the question of the exercise of discretion is governed by several factors, at the same time, those factors are not necessarily constant hence they change with changing circumstance and time. See Haliru V. FRN. (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.425) 1697 at 1726 1727., Haruna V. Modibbo (2005) 16 NWLR (PT.900) P. 487, Ideozu V. Ochoma (2006) 4 NWLR (PT.970) 364. Let me add that a judicial discretion ought to be founded upon the facts and circumstances presented to the Court from which it must draw a conclusion governed by the law. Therefore, it must be exercised honestly and in the spirit of the statute otherwise the act done would not fall within the statute. See the case of University Of Lagos and Ors v. C.I.O. Olaniyan and Ors. (1985) 1 SC 295 at Page 344 345. In the case of ANPP V. Resident Electoral Commissioner Akwa Ibom State (2008) 8 NWLR (PT.1090) 453 at 513, the Supreme Court said thus:

 

"Judicial Discretion is a science of understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between a shadow and substance, between equity and colourable, glosses and preference and not to do to their wills and private affection".

 

-PER M. N. ONIYANGI, J.C.A IN BABAN GIDA & ORS VS MOHAMMED SANI


suit no:
CA/J/391M/2018(R)
 

Legalpedia Electronic Citation:(2020) Legalpedia (CA) 71127
 



Quote
Admin2
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 165
09/06/2020 3:11 pm  

Summary Of Fact:


The Applicants sued the Respondent before Gamboru Sharia Court, Maiduguri seeking amongst others the retrieval and distribution of Estate of their father which were said to have been entrusted with the Respondent. Judgment was entered in favour of the Applicant and aggrieved by the outcome, the Respondent appealed to the Upper Sharia Court 1 Maiduguri, which allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment of the Sharia Court and ordered a retrial.

The Applicant appealed the judgment to the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Appeal was allowed in part. An order of retrial by the Upper Sharia Court 1, Maiduguri was also made. Dissatisfied with the outcome, hence this application pursuant to Section 242 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, Section 15 and 24 (4) of the Court of Appeal Act and Order 6 Rules 1, 6 and 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for the trinity prayers; for extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal in that the period allowed to appeal under the law has expired.


ReplyQuote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
288543
Views Today
Views Today
106