The end of litigation ought to be ‘justice’ and nothing but ‘justice’. But unfortunately, the result of justice has many of the time, been affected by delay in hearing of cases in courts especially the appeals arising therefrom which are the main issue that this paper considers, hence, as appeals much more than the real trials, has almost become a tool for unnecessary delay and thereby become a cause for fear of an unending litigation in the hearts of litigants, hence, this topic for an appropriate decision by the appropriate authorities to resolve this issue of delay in appeals’ hearing.
In the case of ADEWOYIN v. GOV, OSUN STATE & ORS (2011) LPELR-8814(CA), the Court of Appeal of Nigeria held on the importance of an ‘end to litigation’ thus “There must be an end to litigation and this is in the interest of litigants, the courts and the general public. This theory of law is expressed in the well-known legal maxim. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium meaning “it is in interest of the state that there be limit to litigation.” Therefore, in my humble view, for counsel on either side seeing and or viewing a lost case to be a do or die affairs of fighting in litigation till eternity, this is actually an injustice to the adjudication system. ‘Appeals’ and not the ‘trials’ last till very long years in courts for a period only God knows! This attitude should and must be discouraged by our courts, in the interest of justice. Counsel should also be ready at all time to assist courts in doing manifest justice! Cases are won and lost! See the case of ODIEDI v. ONORIKUTA & ORS, (2020) LPELR-51255(CA), where the court held thus “Parties, nay counsel must be consistent in the handling of their cases, both at the trial and on appeals, see Ajide Vs. Kelani (1985) S.C.1. It does not serve the cause or ends of justice to be inconsistent or flippant; cases must not be won at all costs. In approximating justice, ministers in the temple of justice should assist the Court honestly and fairly; It is the duty of counsel to, where it is obvious, bring the parties to understand that there must be an end to litigation and therefore the amicable settlement even by concessions and win-win mechanism do more good than intractable insistence that breed and widen the chasm between otherwise knitted people of the same root. The conservation of time and resources for peaceful advancement will be a better prism to focus, in settled situations that require the gallant throwing in of the litigating towel.”. This issue presupposes the fact that the delay in litigation especially at the appellate courts could be avoided by efforts of the justice ministers i.e. the courts, counsel and the litigants.
Furthermore, the issue of abuse of process which contributes to the delay in courts’ cases many times, should be discouraged. In the case of KOLAWOLE v. A.G OYO STATE & ORS (2005) LPELR-7516(CA), the Court of Appeal of Nigeria defined what is an abuse of court process thus “It is trite in our jurisprudence that there must be an end to litigation. Abuse of Court’s process must be discouraged. In Israel Amaefule & Ors. v. The State (1988) 4 SC 35 at 49; (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) 156 at 157 Oputa, JSC, (as he then was) defined abuse of Process thus:- “Abuse of process of the Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bona fides and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can only mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process …”.
Furthermore, the issue of unnecessary interlocutory appeals that drag the court through indefinite litigation should be avoided as admonished by the Court in the case of v. IBRAHIM & ORS (2014) LPELR-23999(CA) “There must be an end to litigation and speedy trial of cases. In this regard it is the duty of learned counsel who are ministers in the temple of justice to help the Court in seeing that unnecessary delays are not caused in the proceedings and not even by an avoidable interlocutory appeal. Let me in this respect, adopt as mine the sound reasoning of this Court in Ajiboye V. F.R.N. (2013) 17 WRN 127 wherein the Court held thus: “I think counsel who are advising litigants aggrieved by interlocutory decisions of Court should, themselves, be advised against subjecting their clients to avoidable hazards, suffering and spending, which premature appeals entail. Sometimes, a little patience and tact, on the part of counsel, would suggest lying low, and marking down what could have been a point of interlocutory appeal, and opting to take it up at the end of the trial, if the final verdict becomes unfavourable, that is, where the issue for interlocutory appeal would not cease to be live issue in the final judgment of the trial Court. Thus, where a party has cause to disagree with an interlocutory ruling of the trial Court, over an issue which the party will not be foreclosed to raise at the final judgment of the substantive matter, I think the party (or his counsel) should not rush to the Court of Appeal on the issue and stall the trial of the case at the lower Court, whether or not the interlocutory appeal succeeds, and his right of appeal will not extinguished at the final judgment.”
Finally, therefore, it is my humble advice that this delay in hearing appeals must be fought to a logical conclusion so that the interest of justice would always be desired at all time and justice would be seen as done by the litigants who have labored in the court especially the litigant deserving of justice in his case.
Email: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com
