COURT SHOULD NOT RAISE AND DECIDE ISSUES SUO MOTO

TRIAL COURT CAN SUO MOTO JOIN PARTY IN THE SUIT

But when the suit has been filed the trial judge becomes dominus litis and then assumes, under Order IV Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules, Cap 61 of the Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963 still operative in the Rivers State, the duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings accord with the justice of the case by joining either as plaintiff or defendants all the persons who may be entitled to, or who claim some share or interest in the subject-matter of the suit, or who may be likely to be affected by the results if these had not already been made parties. This joinder by the Court suo motu can be done at any state of the proceedings.

– Oputa, JSC. Green v. Green (1987)

CIRCUMSTANCES A COURT OF LAW WILL DECIDE AN ISSUE SUO MOTO

In addition, a court can take an issue and decide on it suo motu in the circumstances stated in the case of Blessing Toyin Omokuwajo V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2013) 9 NWLR (pt. 1359) 300 at 332 per the illuminating judgment prepared by Rhodes – Vivour, J.S.C., thus- “The need to give parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his own motion or suo motu would not be necessary if: (a) the issue relates to the court’s own jurisdiction. (b) both parties are/were aware or ignored a statute which may have a bearing on the case. That is to say where by virtue of statutory provision the Judge is expected to take judicial notice. See Section 73 of the Evidence Act. (c) when on the face of the record serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evidence.”

IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT SUO MOTO ISSUES RAISED AFFECTED THE RIGHT OF THE PARTY COMPLAINING

Looking at the judgment, I observe that although the learned Justice has dealt with issues that never arose from the grounds argued, he adverted to the issues formulated by counsel. He set out the submissions of counsel after stating the facts in detail. The learned Justice, however, under the issues formulated by him, dealt with the issues formulated by the appellant and the respondent. The excursion to other issues raised Suo motu, though uncalled for, does not spell fatality to the judgment since the proper issues were covered. That disposes of the 2nd issue.

— Obaseki, JSC. Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) – SC.197/1987

SUO MOTO; COURT SHOULD NOT SHUT OUT PARTIES

While the Court as master of the law and its Rules are bound to consider all issues based on facts and relevant law in reaching justice in a matter before it, it must not shut out the parties who initiated the process in the first place and owner of the cause or matter in making the decision which effect would impact on the parties.

– M. Peter-Odili JSC. Adegbanke v. Ojelabi (2021)

PARTIES MUST ADDRESS ON ISSUE RAISED SUO MOTO

It is wrong for an appellate court to raise an issue suo motu and determine the issue without giving the parties or their counsel the opportunity to argue the point.

– Adio, JSC. UBN v. Ozigi (1994)

A JUDGE CANNOT RAISE AN ISSUE OF FACT SUO MOTO

It is accepted that in our adversary system of the administration of Justice, where the Judge is at all times expected to play the role of an unbiased umpire, he cannot raise any issues of facts suo motu, and proceed to decide the matter on such issues without hearing the parties – See Kuti v. Balogun (1978) 1 LRN. 353, Atanda and Anor. v. Lakanrni (1974) 1 All NLR, (Pt.l) 168, Odiase and dnor v. Agho and Ors. (1972) 1 All NLR. (Pt.1) 170. The judgment must be confined to the issues of facts raised by the parties, – See Ochonrna v. Unosi (1965) NMLR 321. I am not aware of the extension of this principle to the application of the law relevant to the determination of the issue before the Court. In my opinion as long as the issues on which the judgment is based are findings of facts arising from the pleadings and evidence before the Court, the fact that the court has in the determination of the issues applied principles of law not cited by learned counsel, will not affect the decision. This has always been the accepted law.

– Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Finnih v. Imade (1992)