In seeking reliefs from a Court of law, a plaintiff ought to seek appropriate reliefs in order not to render academic a subject matter that hitherto would have been life and within the jurisdiction of the Court, when a plaintiff, as in the instant case, omits to seek appropriate reliefs, he ties the hands of the Court and snuffs the life out of the case before the Court. It is trite that Courts do not exercise jurisdiction over academic issues as it would be an exercise in futility. The Court is also not a Father Christmas and cannot grant reliefs not sought before it. See UBN LTD vs OGBU (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647; KATE ENTERPRISES LTD vs. DAEWOO NIG. LTD.(1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) page 116.; OWOADE vs OMITOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) page 413.
The facts above have brought about a foray into what can be taken as an academic discourse under the colour of adjudication. It is to be said that a suit is considered academic where it is merely theoretical, makes an empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if the judgment is given in his favour. A matter unrelated to the practical situation of human nature and humanity. Matters such as described are certainly not for the precious time of the Courts which being saddled with more useful adjudicatory issues are clearly being led a garden path on a useless vainglorious adventure into the academic world which have the lvory towers meant for such. See Plateau State v Attorney General of the Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; Ugba v Suswan (2014) 14 NWLR (pt. 1427); Adepoju v Yinka (2012) 1 SC 125 at 147; Salik v Idris (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1429) 36 at 54.
In Agbakoba V. INEC (supra), the issue was whether the Court below was right to hold that the election conducted while the Appeal was still pending, rendered it a mere academic exercise. This Court held that the matter had not become an academic exercise because it was still within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, being a pre-election matter. Tabai, JSC, gave the reason as follows –
The Appellant challenged the propriety of his substitution with the 3rd Respondent and that remains a live issue until its determination by the final appellate Court, notwithstanding any act taken by the Respondents. I hold, therefore, that the Court below erred in law on this issue. Its jurisdiction remained intact. It has a duty to hear and determine the appeal presented there for adjudication.
Odedo V. INEC (supra), dealt with the same issue- substitution, and this Court arrived at the same conclusion. Tobi, JSC, insisted that –
The reliefs are not only capable of enforcement but can be enforced. If a Court of law comes to the conclusion that the substitution was not in compliance with Section 34 of the Electoral Act, 2006, it will declare it a nullity as was done in the case of Ugwu V. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367.
In Adeogun V. Fashogbun (supra), it was the same issue but this time the Court below refused the Application to strike out the Appeal. In dismissing the Appeal, this Court, per Tobi, JSC, pointed out that –
Academic and hypothetical issues of questions do not help in the determination of the live issues in a matter. They are merely on a frolic or they are frolic-some; not touching or affecting the very tangible and material aspects in the adjudication process. As a matter of law, they add nothing to the truth searching process in administration of justice. This is because they do not relate to any relief.
What is an academic question? It is simply an issue that does not require answer or adjudication by a Court; hypothetical or moot question – see Agbakoba V. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489, where this Court per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, further explained that-
An action becomes hypothetical or raises mere academic point when there is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or when its determination holds no practical or tangible value for making a pronouncement, upon it; it is otherwise an exercise in futility. When an issue has become defunct, it does not require to be answered or controvert about and leads to making of bare legal postulations, which the Court should not indulge in; it is like the salt that has lost its seasoning. And like the salt in that state, it has no practical value to anybody and so also, a Suit in that state has none.
In simple terms, an academic issue or question does not relate to the live issues in the litigation because it is spent as it will not enure any right or benefit on a successful party – See Odedo V. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554 SC, Adeogun V. Fashogbun (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 149 SC and Plateau State V. Att. Gen. Fed. (supra) SC.
It is long settled that Courts should not spend precious judicial time engaging in an academic exercise that is best left for the law faculty. Judges are to decide live Issues.
Issues that once decided would result in an acquittal or discharge. See Oyeneye V. Odugbesan (1972) 4 SC, p. 244, Nkwocha v. Gov of Anambra State(1984) 1 SCNLR p. 634, Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) p. 47, Bhojwani v. Bhojwani (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) p. 663, Adelaja & Sons v. Alade & Anor (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) P. 544.
Click the link below to read full Judgment:
Popoola v. State LGC(23/2/2018) B
A suit does not become academic simply because what gave rise to the action is concluded. A pre-election matter that was instituted prior to the conduct of an election subsists and the Court in which it is/was instituted continues to have jurisdiction to hear and determine the said pre-election matter even after the conduct of the election. See;
Odedo v. I.N.E.C. & 2 Ors (2008) 7 SC p.25
Gwede v. I.N.E.C. & 3 Ors (2014) LPELR-23763
DAHIRU & ANOR v. ALL PROGESSIVES CONGRESS &
The complaint of the appellants is that the primaries of the 1st defendant held on 4th December 2014 was not done in compliance with the provisions of Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 and the A.P.C. guidelines. The appellants not only have a complaint but a good cause of action, the appellants were thus correct to bring their action in the Federal High Court as provided by Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (with 2011 amendment) see also;
Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) p.230
P.D.P. v. Sylva (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1316) p.85
Daniel v I.N.E.C. (2015) NWLR (Pt. 1463) p.113
Ardo v. Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1416) p.591
In Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) p.346, this Court said that:
"A suit is academic where it is thereby theoretical, makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiffs even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity." See also Odedo v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) p.554
Once a suit no longer has live issues for determination such a suit can be said to be academic. Courts should on no account spend judicial time, or engage in academic exercise. Courts are to determine only live issues. See;
Oyeneye v. Odugbesan (1972) 4 SC p.244 Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) p.37
Okulate v. Awosanya (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 645) p.530 Nkwocha v. Gov. of Anambra State (1984) 1 SCNLR p.634
DAHIRU & ANOR v. ALL PROGESSIVES CONGRESS &
Whereas the two grounds of appeal complain of errors of law in particular parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the issues are framed as theoretical questions without reference to any part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal complained of in the grounds. An appeal against a judgment is to show that the judgment is not correct in some respect. The ground of appeal is a complain against the part of the judgment isolated and attacked therein. The issues for determination distilled from such grounds must relate to the complain in the grounds of appeal.
An abstract or theoretical issue is incompetent and not valid for consideration in an appeal. Therefore, issues nos. 1 and 2 are incompetent and hereby struck out. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
In consequence, the issue two in this appeal is rendered academic in that it will be of no judicial utilitarian value to the parties herein. In the mind of the law, Courts are not cloaked with the vires to entertain an academic issue/suit no matter the jurisprudential content of the law involved in it. PER OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
It is also settled law that the Court, including this Court, should at all times restrict itself to the consideration and determination of live issues only. See ODUTOLA & ORS V. MABOGUNJE & ORS (2013) LPELR-19909(SC) (P.37, paras, E-F) Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC; OYENEYE V. ODUGBESAN 1972 4 SC p.244; BAKARE V. A.C.B. LTD 1986 3 NWLR pt.26 p.47. MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
I have no problem with the argument that this Court is seised of jurisdiction to entertain a pre-election matter even after the primary election or the general election had been contested, lost and won, so long as the action is within the constitutionally prescribed period for such adjudication. However, where as in the case at hand the possible orders sequel to the claims of the plaintiff would become academic, then the Court has no business delving into the appeal and it is well advised to put a stop to it and not temporise on what to do. See Anyanwu v.
Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379 at 396; C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) LPELR-8257 (SC); (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493; Ikuforiji v. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR-4388 (SC) page 11; (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 142; Odom &Ors v. P.D.P. &Ors(2015) LPELR-24351 (SC) 56; (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527; Ugba& Anor v. Suswam&Ors (2014) LPELR-22 882 (SC) pages 64-65; (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
What is an academic question? In simple terms, an academic issue or question does not relate to the live issues in the litigation because it is spent as it will not ensure any right or benefit on a successful party. See Odedo V. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554 SC, Adeogun V. Fashogbon (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 149 SC, and Agbakoba V. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pi 1119) 489 SC. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C
They submitted that it is not the function of the Court to embark on abstract or academic exercise or speculation, because the Courts are established to determine live issues; that a suit/appeal is academic where there is no live issue, existing right or benefit that will result from such determination, other than an opinion on the matter, Topba v. FRN (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1724) 464; Ijaodola v. Unilorin Governing Council (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 32, Sanwo-Olu v. Awamaridi (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1736) 458; Odom v.
PDP (2015) 61 (Pt. 2) NSCQR 984, (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527 cited; and that in the circumstances of this case, the only order that the Court of Appeal ought to have made, is an order striking out the said appeal. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.
The position of the law is that an academic question does not relate to the live issues in the litigation because it is spent as it will not enure any right or benefit on a successful party – see Odedo v. INEC (supra), Plateau State v. A.-G., Fed. (supra), and Agbakoba v.
INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489, wherein Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, explained that – An action becomes hypothetical or raises mere academic point when there is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or when its determination holds no practical or tangible value for making a pronouncement upon it; it is otherwise an exercise in futility. When an issue has become defunct, it does not require to be answered or controvert about and leads to making of bare legal postulations, which the Court should not indulge in; it is like the salt that has lost its seasoning.
And like the salt in that state, it has no practical value to anybody and so also, a suit in that state has none. See alsoAdeogun v. Fashogbon (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 149 SC, wherein this Court, per Tobi, JSC, explained the principle as follows: – Academic and hypothetical issues of questions do not help in the determination of the live issues in a matter They are merely on a frolic or they are frolic-some; not touching or affecting the very tangible and material aspects in the adjudication process.
As a matter of law, they add nothing to the truth searching process in administration of justice. This is because they do not relate to any relief. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.