Background
This case arose from a dispute concerning the chieftaincy declaration for the Elejelu of Ijelu Ekiti, following a report by the Oluwole Chieftaincy Review Commission. The appellant sought several declaratory reliefs against chieftaincy authorities.
Issues
The core issue revolved around the procedural propriety of the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out certain grounds of appeal without allowing the appellant to address the court on those grounds:
- Impropriety of striking out the grounds of appeal without hearing from both parties.
- Distinction between grounds of law and grounds of fact.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that an appellate court’s decision to strike out grounds of appeal suo motu, without allowing the parties to present their arguments, amounts to a denial of fair hearing. Furthermore, it emphasized the importance of distinguishing between legal and factual grounds of appeal.
Court Findings
The court made several critical findings:
- It ruled that ground (3) of the appellant’s appeal should not have been struck out, as it raised significant legal issues that required consideration by the Court of Appeal.
- The Supreme Court noted that any failure to consider all issues raised does not necessarily constitute a miscarriage of justice unless it deprives one party of a fair hearing.
- In examining the preliminary objections raised by the respondents regarding jurisdiction, the court permitted the appellant to amend his brief to reflect proper parties as necessitated by the States (Creation Transitional Provisions) Decree.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for a re-hearing by a differently constituted panel. The court underscored the paramount importance of fair hearing and adherence to procedural rules in judicial proceedings.
Significance
This judgment underscores the critical nature of ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to present their case fully in appellate settings, as any deviation from this could result in the quashing of procedural decisions by higher courts, reinforcing the doctrine of fair hearing.