Isah Bala Garba

Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, J.S.C. while delivering the judgment in N.D.I.C. v. T.A. (Nig.) Ltd. (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067) 23, recounted how counsel to the parties had mutually agreed that, since the respondents' senior counsel could not attend court on the scheduled date, the junior counsel would attend and seek an adjournment to another date when the senior counsel could personally conduct the reply. However, despite being privy to this arrangement, the appellant's counsel urged the trial court to proceed with the matter. The trial court, unfortunately refused the adjournment, entertained the appellant's preliminary objection and, having considered same, dismissed the respondents' suit. His Lordship did not mince words in condemning the conduct of the appellant's counsel and aptly admonished ad litteram: “The learned counsel to the appellant ought to have informed the court of the agreement between both counsel that the matter be adjourned. The conduct of the learned counsel to the appellant is condemnable. Learned counsel owes his learned colleague and the court a duty to be transparent in the conduct of their cases, not mislead the court or play a fast one on his colleague for cheap victory. As justice delayed is justice denied, hasty justice is certainly no justice.” A timely lesson that professional ethics must always prevail over the desire to win at all costs.

The SC in N.D.I.C. v. T.A. (Nig.) Ltd. (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067) 23 ordained that although the issue of jurisdiction can generally be raised at any stage of proceedings, even for the first time at the Supreme Court, the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a division of the Federal High Court cannot be raised for the first time at the Supreme Court without leave of court. Consequently, where the issue was neither raised at the trial court nor at the Court of Appeal, it cannot be introduced at the Supreme Court without leave to do so.

The SC in N.A.O. Co. Ltd. v. Danaz Services Ltd. (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067) held that the practice and procedure governing an appeal are regulated strictly by the rules of the appellate court. Consequently, even though a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal is filed at the registry of the trial court, the Court of Appeal Rules govern the appeal not the trial court's rules, as filing the notice at the trial court's registry is merely a requirement prescribed by the said Rules.

A rare moment when Milord, Agim, J.S.C., in N.A.O. Co. Ltd. v. Danaz Services Ltd. (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067), commended counsel for conceding to opposing counsel's argument that payment of inadequate filing fees is a mere irregularity which does not render a court process incompetent or rob the court of jurisdiction. My Lord's commendation of counsel for his candour and commitment to the pursuit of justice gave me goosebumps, honestly. 😁🙌 Hey, D'law, have you ever been commended by Court like this before? 😂😂

If you have an interest in Maritime Law, I commend you to read General Hydrocarbons Ltd. v. F.B.N. Ltd. (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067) 57. It honestly offers an interesting clarification on the scope of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the State High Court, as well as the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction over contractual disputes.

The SC in Mohammed v. State (2026) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2067) 175 reaffirmed that the proper procedure for challenging some incompetent grounds of appeal is by a motion on notice and not a preliminary objection. A preliminary objection is appropriate only where all the grounds of appeal are challenged or the defect in the notice of appeal goes to the root of the appeal, as its purpose is to terminate the appeal in limine. Consequently, a preliminary objection directed at only some grounds of appeal, where other competent grounds can sustain the appeal, is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

The SC in State v. Abdullahi (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2066) 505 reaffirmed that issues for determination in an appeal must be distilled from or relate to the grounds of appeal contained in the appellant’s notice of appeal. Consequently, any issue raised by either party that does not arise from or relate to the appellant’s grounds of appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

The SC in Ebuh v. Keystone Bank Ltd. (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2066) 523 held that a ground of appeal is one of law where it complains of the misapplication or non-application of legal principles, challenges the interpretation of statutes or legal doctrines, or questions the legal effect of admitted or established facts. Consequently, grounds of appeal challenging the legal consequences of corporate acquisition and the doctrine of successor liability, rather than the evaluation of evidence or determination of disputed facts, are grounds of law and do not require prior leave of court.

The SC in Ebuh v. Keystone Bank Ltd. (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2066) 523 held that an allotment of shares is void ab initio where it is made ultra vires the company, in direct violation of a mandatory statutory provision, or without legal authority. However, an allotment is voidable where it involves procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, mistake or non-disclosure, or where the company has the power to make the allotment but executes it defectively. The Court further held that, by virtue of section 153 of CAMA 2020, an allotment made in contravention of the Act is not ipso facto void but voidable at the instance of the allottee within the prescribed period.

The SC in E.M.T.S. Ltd. v. Afdin Ventures Ltd. (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2066) 447 eruditely ordained that Order 6 rule 3(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024, which requires an appellant to file evidence of payment of all sums ordered by way of costs into an escrow account in the name of the Chief Registrar within 21 days of filing the notice of appeal, is couched in mandatory terms, and non-compliance renders the appeal liable to dismissal. However, notwithstanding the appellant’s failure to comply with this requirement and to obey the trial court’s order to deposit the judgment sum, which rendered the respondent’s preliminary objection meritorious, the Court is compelled not to terminate the appeal, SOLELY because proceedings for the enforcement of arbitral awards are sui generis, possessing a peculiar commercial character and significance, and are not ordinary civil disputes. Consequently, the preliminary objection was overruled, and the Court proceeded to determine the appeal on its merits pursuant to section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. __________________________________________ On a lighter note 😂😂 This is probably the most surprising case I have ever read, as counsel to the Respondents did not even file a reply to the preliminary objection; na milords argue in response on behalf of the Appellant, and still found in their favour. Lucky them! 😂😂 ₦10 million costs was awarded against them, shaa, after finding the substantive appeal in favour of the respondents. 😭😂

I have always believed that reading cases is one of the best ways to develop versatility across different areas of law, as the final bus stop for most disputes, regardless of the area of law they originate from, is usually the court. The instant case of E.M.T.S. Ltd. v. Afdin Ventures Ltd. (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2066) 447 is a perfect illustration. It touches on arbitration, corporate practice, particularly the issue of lifting the veil of incorporation, and the ever-important procedural questions of jurisdiction, the importance of compliance with the rules of court, and the consequence of failing to file a reply to a preliminary objection, inter alia. Indeed, law reports will remain one of the most valuable reading materials for law students and legal practitioners.

SC in F.B.N. Plc v. Oboh (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2065) 251 held that only a pending application for extension of time to file an appellant’s brief of argument can take precedence over a motion to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the brief, not an application for leave to amend the notice of appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeal is not bound to defer the hearing of a motion to dismiss an appeal merely because an application to amend the notice of appeal is pending.

I will be having a session tonight with members of the Faculty of Law, University of Abuja, at the IMEH EKANEM CHAMBERS 2-Day Courtroom Advocacy Workshop; Series 2.0. I will be speaking on “The Moot Courtroom: A Practical Guide to Appellant and Respondent Advocacy.” ⚖️📚 🗓️ 17th October 2026 | 🕗 8:00 PM | 💻 Google Meet Looking forward to an engaging and practical session!

The SC in Opene v. N.J.C. (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2064) 161 ordained, inter alia, that the jurisdiction that can be challenged for the first time on appeal without leave is confined to the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals established by the Constitution or statute. Consequently, a jurisdictional objection concerning an administrative body, such as the National Judicial Council, requires leave of court before it can be raised for the first time on appeal.

The SC in Wilberforce v. Council, Fed. Poly, Mubi (2026) 15 NWLR (Pt. 2063) 381 ordained that the motive behind an employer’s decision to terminate an employee’s employment is immaterial, provided the termination is lawful.