University Of Jos V. Emmanuel N. Yemtet (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

I have tagged this determination of the issues in controversy as ?decision? by virtue of Section 294(1)-(4) read together with Section 318(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. The provisions state as follows:-

?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 furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof.

(2) Each Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeal shall express and deliver his opinion in writing, or may state in writing that he adopts the opinion of any other Justice who delivers written opinion:

Provided that it shall not be necessary for all the Justices who heard a cause or matter to be present when judgment is to be delivered and the opinion of a Justice may be pronounced or read by any other Justice whether or not he was present at the hearing.

1

3. A decision of a Court consisting of more than one judge shall be determined by the opinion of the majority of its members.
4. For the purpose of delivering its decision under this section, the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal or the National Industrial Court, shall be deemed to be duly constituted if at least one member of that Court sits for that purpose.”

Section 318(1) of the Constitution supra defines a “decision” to mean “in the relation to a Court, any determination of that Court and includes judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation.” The word “Ruling” is omitted in the definition of “decision” in Section 318(1) of the Constitution (supra). The express mention of a word or a term in a Constitution, legislation, law or rule automatically excludes what is omitted. In Udoh vs Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board (1993) 7 SCNJ (pt 2) 436 Karibi-Whyte JSC held at page 443 as follows:-

“It is a well settled principle of construction of statutes that where a section names specific things among many other possible alternatives, the intention is that those not

2

named are not intended to be included. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. See A-G. of Bendel State vs. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR 646. This is that the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication, with regard to the same issue- See Ogbunyinya vs. Okudo (1979) 6-9 SC 32; Military Governor of Ondo State vs. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.82) 280.”

See also Military Governor of Ondo State vs Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (pt 8) 280.

Every Court is bound by the express intention of the framers of the Constitution, a statute or rule. See Osho vs. Phillips (1972) 4 S.C. 259 at 268; Odutola Holdings Ltd vs Ladejobi (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.994) 321.

In Maxwell On the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th edition, appears at pages 1-2 the following passage:-

“Granted that a document which presented to it as a statute is an authentic expression of the legislative will, the function of a Court is to interpret that document “according to the intent of them that made it.” From that function the Court may not resile: however ambiguous or difficult of