Architects Registration Council Of Nigeria (No.2) In Re: O.c. Majoroh V. Prof. M. A. Fassassi (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C

This application of Chief Williams, S.A.N., is that this panel of the Supreme Court, as at present constituted, should not hear this appeal on the grounds that the panel has already taken its stand against the Appellant as a result of an order which the Court made yesterday. The order is as follows –

(i) that the hearing of this appeal be accelerated;

(ii) that this appeal be adjourned till today for hearing; and

(iii) that the parties including the present Registrar of the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria shall be personally present at the hearing of the appeal today.

The complaint is based on the third of the three items (supra).

This Order, Chief Williams submitted, is indicative of the Court having taken a stand already, on the appeal before the Court, and as I have earlier said, the stand is against the interest of his client – the Appellant in this case. Counsel referred to his Brief – item (ii) – which reads-

“Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that a trial court has the power, suo motu, in a case of this nature, to command the personal appearance of the deponent to an affidavit or to direct him to produce a record or document when –

(a) other parties have agreed that there are no conflicts to resolve in the affidavit evidence before the court.

(b) There is no application by either party to cross examine the deponent to any of the affidavits and

(c) The hearing of the relevant application had commenced.”

(Italics mine)

Indeed, what the complaint of learned counsel amounts to, is charge of bias against this Court, in an appeal, pending before it, as a result of its Order aforesaid, even though the Brief of learned counsel deals with commanding the appearance of a deponent and not that of a party.

Let me give a background to the order which has led to this application by learned counsel, and in respect of which, counsel is now charging this Court with bias: