Justice

The case appears to be a criminal matter. However, fair trial should not be sacrificed at the altar of the doctrine of double jeopardy. It is true that "justice delayed is justice denied". Equally, "justice rushed is justice denied."

FRN V. NASIRU YAHAYA LGC(25/01/2019) P

It is therefore my view that failure to consider all the ten issues did not occasion any miscarriage of justice neither have the appellants show how it adversely affected their case. Afterall, the minority judgment which is in their favour was based on the said two issues adopted in the majority Judgment There is nothing to show that appellants were denied fair hearing merely by not resolving all the ten issues. Where a Judge or Court fails to consider an issue adjudged not to be relevant or crucial to the determination of the case or appeal before the Court, the non-reference to it is not a denial of fair hearing and will not amount to miscarriage of justice. SeeFederal Ministry of Health & Anor v. Comet Shipping Agences Ltd (supra) at p.222 Paras C – E.

This is an embellishment that is unbecoming in a Judgment. But it is not every error or wrong inference made by a Court that will lead to the reversal of its Judgment. An Appellant must show that the error or wrong inference, as in this case, has occasioned a miscarriage of justice and/or substantially affected its decision – see Ajuwon V. Akanni & Ors (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 182 SC.
In other words, an error that has not occasioned miscarriage of justice is immaterial and may not affect the result of a decision. This is because an appellate Court only has to decide whether the decision of a lower Court was right; not whether its reasons were – A.G., Ekiti State V. Adewumi (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 751) 474 SC.