"Under issue No. 2, the question is no longer whether there is undue delay on the part of the Court below in the delivery of Judgment. At the close of evidence of defence witness on the 10th March, 2016, at page 35 of the record of appeal, the Court adjourned the case to another date to enable parties in the matter file and exchange written addresses, which were adopted by the respective counsel on the 19th May 2016 as at pages 45-46 of the record of appeal. On that same 19th May, 2016, the Court reserved Judgment to a "date to be communicated." See page 46 of the record of appeal. The record of appeal at pages 70-95 indicate that the trial Court delivered Judgment in this matter on 8th December, 2016, that is well over 6 (six) months after the final addresses of counsel on the 19th May, 2016. Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides thus:"294-(1) Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnishes all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery..."

The Court below, that is, the High Court of Borno State, is by virtue of Sections 270(1),(2) and 6 of the Constitution (as amended), bound to observe and apply the provisions of the Constitution at Section 294(1) relating to the time within which the Court is expected to deliver Judgment in any given case. It follows therefore that any Judgment of Court delivered outside ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses is a contravention of that provision of the Constitution. The mere fact that Judgment was delivered outside the stipulated period is itself an issue regardless whether or not a miscarriage of Justice was occasioned.

Afterall as Judges or Justices of Superior Courts of the land, we all subscribed to Judicial Oath under Section 290(1) read together with the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The provision of Section 294(1) was enacted to prevent delivery of Judgment from being unduly delayed. The question whether or not there is a "miscarriage of Justice" arising from that delay is another issue. Where however for any reason there is a delay in the delivery of Judgment outside the constitutional time limit, it must be established that some miscarriage of justice was occasioned in the sense that at the time of delivery of Judgment, the Court has lost all impressions of witnesses to the case and failed to evaluate or properly evaluate evidence before it.

It is only then can that Judgment be declared null and void on account of miscarriage of justice being occasioned under Section 294(5) of the Constitution, which provides:"294-(5) The decision of a Court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Subsection (1) of this section unless the Court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof." On the meaning and/or definition of the phraseology "a miscarriage of justice", the apex Court in Onagoruwa Vs. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 303) 49 has held that:"Miscarriage of justice means failure on the part of the Court to do justice. It is justice misplaced, misappreciated or misappropriated. It is an ill conduct on the part of the Court, which amounts to injustice."

In determining whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned arising from undue delay in the delivery of Judgment appealed against, the emphasis is not on the length of time but the effect the delay had had on the mind of Court. Thus if the Court's evaluation of evidence bears mark of freshness and the finding of fact is supported by credible evidence, the Judgment will not be set aside. See Molegbemi V. Amos Ajayi (2011) LPELR - 450(CA)."

Per HUSSAINI, J.C.A. IN SHEHURI & ORS v. HON. COMMISSIONER BORNO STATE MINISTRY OF LAND & SURVEY & ANOR CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44077(CA)