Thinking that Members of the Bench are perfect will
be at best misguided and at worst positively
misleading.
No doubt, we have the excellent fine ones amongst them but yet
that’s far from perfection. This point was hammered home Per
Aniagolu,J.S.C in BAKARE v. APENA(1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 33)6
“Perfection is a laudable aspiration.But for a trial Judge,it is
not necessarily a virtue. For one thing, strive as you can, you may
never attain perfection. No judge however brilliant, however
hardworking can claim an immunity from error. “
Niki Tobi, J.S.C once opined that the difference between the
bench and the bar is like heaven and earth. No doubt, this belief
has contributed in widening the gap between the Bench and Bar. This
means that the only way a Judge can realize the mistakes in his
ruling or judgment is when such ruling or judgment is appealed
against &maybe upturned.
We are admonished not to make the mistake of thinking that our
JUDGES are earthly beings. They live in Heaven.
The Supreme Court, through RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C answered this
Solemn question on where our judges descend from.
Hear His Lordship in SENATOR JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR V. CHIEF
MARTIN NWANSCHO ELECHI & ORS (2012) LPELR-7823(SC) that:
“A judge is to descend from his heavenly abode, no
lower than the treetops, resolve earthly disputes and return to the
Supreme Lord”.
But in reality, Judges are imperfect beings with too much loads
of work on their table begging to be dicharged/resolved.
His Lordship, Per Achike,J.C.A drew the bar closer to this
reality when he made an attempt to correct this impression in
CHUKWUJEKWU v. OLALERE (1992)2 NWLR (Pt.221)89 @ 96-97 thus:
Very often Learned Counsel regards Judges on the bench as the
Pedestal of angels who must be presumed to be infallible. That of
course, is not only sacrilegious but untenable. The Judge on the
bench is not imbued with infallibility. It is common knowledge that
although judges on the bench may be upright and their character
impeccable, their competency in adjudicatory process cannot be
rationalised in terms of their uprightness and impeccability.
Little wonder that grounds of appeal in our various courts
exercising appellate jurisdiction are replete with the professional
jargon that the Learned trial judge “erred in law.”
Judicial activism is a virtue amongst them which requires that a
court should not hesitate to take advantage of a situation which
gives room for the killing of the proverbial two birds with the
proverbial stone in order to eliminate delay in the pursuit to
Justice. See Bolatito v. Sole Administrator(1986)5 NWLR
(Pt.41)499.
In order to ensure the administration of fair trial and natural
justice, there’s a large boundary between the Bench and the Bar.No
doubt,the Bar would have helped the Bench with quick research and
cross-pollunation if there was no boundary.
They are humans,too and in practice, industrious cum smart
Lawyers always win the case no matter how bad it might be.
I have noticed with keen interest that if you back your
applications and submissions with statutes, rules of court and
Superior Courts judgments, they are bound to grant them and bow to
your prayers nomatter how unrealistic it might be.
And when a Legal Practitioner makes a realistic fine application
but fails to support his process with the appropriate law
empowering him to make such beautiful application, it will no doubt
be refused once it is vehemently opposed.
This has also be defined recently by the Supreme Court as an
Abuse of court process. See BUKOYE v. ADEYEMO (2017)1
NWLR (Pt.1546)173@181-182, Ratio 8, par.e where the
supreme court enumerated the circumstances that would give rise to
abuse of court process as thus: Where there is no law supporting a
court process/application.”
Furthermore, Per ADEKEYE J.S.C in OYEGUN V NZERIBE (2010)7 NWLR
(Pt.1194)577@593, par.G held that Any party seeking the
exercise of the discretionary power of court must bring his case
within the provisions Of the rules which he purported to make his
application. “
The proper combative approach to your cases is to always give
the Bench laws/back up your submission with proper legal background
because most of them are either very busy, indisposed to research
or are unprepared for the job like the biblical ten virgins which
took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom, some went
with sufficient oil while others went unprepared (Matthew
25:1).
At this juncture, I will not hesitate to state without fear of
favour that complacency in the Bench & Bar must be discouraged
and the Bench must be abreast with times,events & new
development as this will empower them to improve law like science
because ” the ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the
innocent, ” as rightly expressed in the Latin maxim,”Ignorantia
judicis eat calamitas innocentis.”
Let the Bench’s lions of wisdom be girded about, and their
lights of fairness burn with diligence.
Needless to say that those who lack the skills & passion for
research will just copy and paste in their
ruling/judgment and the whole court will be left with no option but
to echo as the court pleases. This epitomizes the
fact that the Judge is the Dominus Litis (Lord of
His Proceedings).
Every Lawyer in active practice has a mandatory obligation as a
Minister in the Temple of Justice to guide the court appropriately
in reaching sound decision which will do substantial justice to
every matter before them as the court is not a technicians
Workshop.
Moreso, Lawyers as Ministers in the Temple of Justice owe it a
duty to make proper applications/prayers and back up their cases
with proper facts and documents as the Judges are neither Magicians
nor Father Christmas to know or discover facts not before them.
Very importantly, the Court can only take judicial notice of
documents or facts placed before him.See Section 122(4)
of the Evidence Act,2011.
Little wonder,His Lordship NIKI TOBI,J.C.A(as he then was)
poured out wisdom when he said in AJIKAWO v. ANSALDO (NIG)LTD
(1991)2 NWLR (Pt.174)364@374 that:
“First,it is not the judicial function of a Judge to embark on
an unguarded voyage of discovery for facts which are not placed
before him. A trial Judge is not Vasco Dagama. A trial Judge is not
Christopher Columbus. Coming nearer home,a trial Judge is not Mungo
Park. A trial Judge is a person whose duty is to inquire only to
the facts placed before him in the court.He is forbidden by our
laws to go outside the facts in court to search for more facts with
a view to discovering newer pastures ie the greener pasture.He
cannot do such a thing.”
Also, Kayode ESO,J.S.C rightly said in SADIPO v LEMMINKAINEM
OY(1986)1 NWLR (Pt.15)220@224 that a Judge is not the Grand
Inquisitor envisaged by Dostoevsky in his Brothers Karamazou. A
Judge is not a go-getter or free for all fighter.
One of the tools of leverage that can assist the Bench and Bar
achieve this goal is the effective use of technology through Online
Law related search engines, softwares & digitalized research
facilities.
No doubt, one of the advantages of technology is that it has
drawn us closer to the river of substantial justice although cannot
force us to drink from it.
Technology has limited the dishonourable act of misleading the
court through wrong authorities as they can easily access cases
online and follow suit during case presentation/submission.
This act of misleading the Bench has been discouraged Per
*Ogbuagu,J.S.C in DREXEL ENERGY & ORS v. TRANS INTERNATIONAL
BANK LTD & ORS (2009) All FWLR (Pt.456)1823 @1853;(2009)15 WRN
1@48 where the court re-echoed the need for all Counsel to ensure
that the cases or authorities they cite and rely on in their briefs
are correct and not misleading.
No doubt, many Members of the Bench are still struggling to
accept the realities of technology as they hardly use internet nor
computer.
We( Online Law Reports of Nigeria )make bold to
recommend the appointment of Research Assistants in the judiciary
who will assist our Judges & Magistrates with research work
especially with regards to the current position of the
law.(Although, this strategy has been adopted by some
jurisdictions)
We also recommend regular compulsory computer training for
Magistrates and Judges and use of law softwares by them. This
humble suggestion by the Team of Online Law
Reports of Nigeria will no doubt bring the Bench closer to
perfection and will make litigants and even lawyers smile out of
court with the satisfaction that justice has not only be done but
has been seen to be done.
In conclusion, It is either you change with time or time will
change with you. Embracing new technology, emerging ideas cum
innovations and being up-to-date with the law will no doubt make
the Bench to break new grounds with ease and beyond their
imagination.
I rest my juristic ink!
Written by: Daniel C. Oti,Esq (
07061122878).
Thinking that Members of the Bench are perfect will
be at best misguided and at worst positively
misleading.
No doubt, we have the excellent fine ones amongst them but yet
that’s far from perfection. This point was hammered home Per
Aniagolu,J.S.C in BAKARE v. APENA(1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 33)6
“Perfection is a laudable aspiration.But for a trial Judge,it is
not necessarily a virtue. For one thing, strive as you can, you may
never attain perfection. No judge however brilliant, however
hardworking can claim an immunity from error. “
Niki Tobi, J.S.C once opined that the difference between the
bench and the bar is like heaven and earth. No doubt, this belief
has contributed in widening the gap between the Bench and Bar. This
means that the only way a Judge can realize the mistakes in his
ruling or judgment is when such ruling or judgment is appealed
against &maybe upturned.
We are admonished not to make the mistake of thinking that our
JUDGES are earthly beings. They live in Heaven.
The Supreme Court, through RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C answered this
Solemn question on where our judges descend from.
Hear His Lordship in SENATOR JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR V. CHIEF
MARTIN NWANSCHO ELECHI & ORS (2012) LPELR-7823(SC) that:
“A judge is to descend from his heavenly abode, no
lower than the treetops, resolve earthly disputes and return to the
Supreme Lord”.
But in reality, Judges are imperfect beings with too much loads
of work on their table begging to be dicharged/resolved.
His Lordship, Per Achike,J.C.A drew the bar closer to this
reality when he made an attempt to correct this impression in
CHUKWUJEKWU v. OLALERE (1992)2 NWLR (Pt.221)89 @ 96-97 thus:
Very often Learned Counsel regards Judges on the bench as the
Pedestal of angels who must be presumed to be infallible. That of
course, is not only sacrilegious but untenable. The Judge on the
bench is not imbued with infallibility. It is common knowledge that
although judges on the bench may be upright and their character
impeccable, their competency in adjudicatory process cannot be
rationalised in terms of their uprightness and impeccability.
Little wonder that grounds of appeal in our various courts
exercising appellate jurisdiction are replete with the professional
jargon that the Learned trial judge “erred in law.”
Judicial activism is a virtue amongst them which requires that a
court should not hesitate to take advantage of a situation which
gives room for the killing of the proverbial two birds with the
proverbial stone in order to eliminate delay in the pursuit to
Justice. See Bolatito v. Sole Administrator(1986)5 NWLR
(Pt.41)499.
In order to ensure the administration of fair trial and natural
justice, there’s a large boundary between the Bench and the Bar.No
doubt,the Bar would have helped the Bench with quick research and
cross-pollunation if there was no boundary.
They are humans,too and in practice, industrious cum smart
Lawyers always win the case no matter how bad it might be.
I have noticed with keen interest that if you back your
applications and submissions with statutes, rules of court and
Superior Courts judgments, they are bound to grant them and bow to
your prayers nomatter how unrealistic it might be.
And when a Legal Practitioner makes a realistic fine application
but fails to support his process with the appropriate law
empowering him to make such beautiful application, it will no doubt
be refused once it is vehemently opposed.
This has also be defined recently by the Supreme Court as an
Abuse of court process. See BUKOYE v. ADEYEMO (2017)1
NWLR (Pt.1546)173@181-182, Ratio 8, par.e where the
supreme court enumerated the circumstances that would give rise to
abuse of court process as thus: Where there is no law supporting a
court process/application.”
Furthermore, Per ADEKEYE J.S.C in OYEGUN V NZERIBE (2010)7 NWLR
(Pt.1194)577@593, par.G held that Any party seeking the
exercise of the discretionary power of court must bring his case
within the provisions Of the rules which he purported to make his
application. “
The proper combative approach to your cases is to always give
the Bench laws/back up your submission with proper legal background
because most of them are either very busy, indisposed to research
or are unprepared for the job like the biblical ten virgins which
took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom, some went
with sufficient oil while others went unprepared (Matthew
25:1).
At this juncture, I will not hesitate to state without fear of
favour that complacency in the Bench & Bar must be discouraged
and the Bench must be abreast with times,events & new
development as this will empower them to improve law like science
because ” the ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the
innocent, ” as rightly expressed in the Latin maxim,”Ignorantia
judicis eat calamitas innocentis.”
Let the Bench’s lions of wisdom be girded about, and their
lights of fairness burn with diligence.
Needless to say that those who lack the skills & passion for
research will just copy and paste in their
ruling/judgment and the whole court will be left with no option but
to echo as the court pleases. This epitomizes the
fact that the Judge is the Dominus Litis (Lord of
His Proceedings).
Every Lawyer in active practice has a mandatory obligation as a
Minister in the Temple of Justice to guide the court appropriately
in reaching sound decision which will do substantial justice to
every matter before them as the court is not a technicians
Workshop.
Moreso, Lawyers as Ministers in the Temple of Justice owe it a
duty to make proper applications/prayers and back up their cases
with proper facts and documents as the Judges are neither Magicians
nor Father Christmas to know or discover facts not before them.
Very importantly, the Court can only take judicial notice of
documents or facts placed before him.See Section 122(4)
of the Evidence Act,2011.
Little wonder,His Lordship NIKI TOBI,J.C.A(as he then was)
poured out wisdom when he said in AJIKAWO v. ANSALDO (NIG)LTD
(1991)2 NWLR (Pt.174)364@374 that:
“First,it is not the judicial function of a Judge to embark on
an unguarded voyage of discovery for facts which are not placed
before him. A trial Judge is not Vasco Dagama. A trial Judge is not
Christopher Columbus. Coming nearer home,a trial Judge is not Mungo
Park. A trial Judge is a person whose duty is to inquire only to
the facts placed before him in the court.He is forbidden by our
laws to go outside the facts in court to search for more facts with
a view to discovering newer pastures ie the greener pasture.He
cannot do such a thing.”
Also, Kayode ESO,J.S.C rightly said in SADIPO v LEMMINKAINEM
OY(1986)1 NWLR (Pt.15)220@224 that a Judge is not the Grand
Inquisitor envisaged by Dostoevsky in his Brothers Karamazou. A
Judge is not a go-getter or free for all fighter.
One of the tools of leverage that can assist the Bench and Bar
achieve this goal is the effective use of technology through Online
Law related search engines, softwares & digitalized research
facilities.
No doubt, one of the advantages of technology is that it has
drawn us closer to the river of substantial justice although cannot
force us to drink from it.
Technology has limited the dishonourable act of misleading the
court through wrong authorities as they can easily access cases
online and follow suit during case presentation/submission.
This act of misleading the Bench has been discouraged Per
*Ogbuagu,J.S.C in DREXEL ENERGY & ORS v. TRANS INTERNATIONAL
BANK LTD & ORS (2009) All FWLR (Pt.456)1823 @1853;(2009)15 WRN
1@48 where the court re-echoed the need for all Counsel to ensure
that the cases or authorities they cite and rely on in their briefs
are correct and not misleading.
No doubt, many Members of the Bench are still struggling to
accept the realities of technology as they hardly use internet nor
computer.
We( Online Law Reports of Nigeria )make bold to
recommend the appointment of Research Assistants in the judiciary
who will assist our Judges & Magistrates with research work
especially with regards to the current position of the
law.(Although, this strategy has been adopted by some
jurisdictions)
We also recommend regular compulsory computer training for
Magistrates and Judges and use of law softwares by them. This
humble suggestion by the Team of Online Law
Reports of Nigeria will no doubt bring the Bench closer to
perfection and will make litigants and even lawyers smile out of
court with the satisfaction that justice has not only be done but
has been seen to be done.
In conclusion, It is either you change with time or time will
change with you. Embracing new technology, emerging ideas cum
innovations and being up-to-date with the law will no doubt make
the Bench to break new grounds with ease and beyond their
imagination.
I rest my juristic ink!
Written by: Daniel C. Oti,Esq (
07061122878).
Read more https://nairalaw.com/the-imperfect-nature-of-the-bench-the-way-forward-by-daniel-c-otiesq/