Background
This case pertains to an application brought by the appellants, seeking to nullify the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 6 July 2012. The appellants asserted that their appeal was not adequately heard, alleging procedural irregularities in the delivery of the judgments by the Supreme Court justices.
Issues
The main issues considered by the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the absence of certain concurring judgments on the day of the lead judgment vitiated the entire judgment.
- Whether a certified true copy of a judgment must be signed to be valid.
- Whether the depositions made in the supporting affidavits complied with the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court ruled on the following grounds:
- The absence of concurring judgments at the time of delivering the lead judgment does not invalidate the judgment, given all justices agreed on the conclusion.
- Certified true copies of judgments do not require the signature of the delivering justice for validity.
- The court has a duty to evaluate unchallenged affidavits but also noted that irrelevant or unfounded allegations could lead to dismissal.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court found:
- That the judgments delivered on 6 July 2012 were valid, as they met quorum requirements and the delivery complied with constitutional provisions.
- The argument that the lack of later-visible judgments constituted a miscarriage of justice was dismissed, as it was not demonstrated that this had any adverse effect on the appellants.
- The documents presented as proof were properly certified, negating the claims around their unsigned or undated nature.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the application to set aside the judgment lacked merit, reinforcing the importance of adherence to procedural rules but also recognizing their flexibility under certain circumstances.
Significance
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the requirements for delivering judgments in the Supreme Court of Nigeria, particularly around the status of concurring opinions and the nature of certified true copies. It establishes that a valid judgment can still emerge from an assembly of justices even when full written opinions are not immediately available, enhancing judicial efficiency while safeguarding against procedural inadequacies that do not amount to a miscarriage of justice.