ESQ Legal Practice Magazine JUNE 2014 EDITION | Page 14

law, which he applies firmly
but with compassion. He is
short, tall, thin, fat, black, and
white. He is a husband or wife,
a father or mother, a tenant or
landlord, in short, he is human.
He tries to measure up. (as
best as he could in the face of
many odds) to the set ideals of
justice albeit falling short now
and again. In performing this
herculean task of delivering
justice, his life and personal
experience plays a very
important role.
As a devout catholic with
strong respect for the sanctity
of marriage and the care of
children, Oputa through his
judgements counselled parents
to always put the interest of
their children at the front
before allowing ego and anger
tear their marriages apart. In
Okafor v Okafor, he said:
“Both parties claim the custody
of this child…and both are very
anxious to have the custody. If
the parties to a marriage give
enough thought to the
problems a broken marriage
may do and or pose to the
issues (children) of that
marriage and are prepared to
swallow some of their pride
and thus become less selfish,
then there will definitely be a
marked decrease in the divorce
rate and its consequents broken
homes. But experience has
shown that parties show more
interest in the custody of their
children, a custody which
should never have been in
issue had the marriage
survived”.
Both at the bar and on the
bench, Oputa's life serves as a
lesson to lawyers in their
attitude to cases which they
handle for clients. According to
him, “A lawyer owes himself a
duty to participate and not be
partisan in the case he is
handling. … He should not be
too personally or emotionally
involved in a case he is merely
called upon to advocate.” in
Okpara v Obi Oputa JSC
reminded counsels to always
remember that there primary
duty to the court is to see that
justice is done between
litigants.
“Rather than helping to narrow
the issues to be contested at the
trial, counsel nowadays, use
pleadings to becloud the issues.
The defendant's pleading put
the plaintiff to the “strictest
proof” of every allegation of
fact made in his statement of
claim. That may be permissible

www.esqlaw.net

but the party who wants proof submission that its previous
of the obvious, or proof of
decision or decisions were
what should have admitted, wrong and should be overruled. In fact, the Court
must be prepared to pay for
welcomes any opportunity to
such proof.”
This dictum is in consonance review any decisions given
with the memorable words of per incuriam.' It is far better to
Crampton J. in R. v. O'Connell admit an established mistake
(1844) 7 lr. L.R. 261: where he or and correct same rather
laid down the forensic duty of than persevere in error.
the advocate and stated, “This Justices of the Supreme Court
court in which we sit is a
are human-beings capable of
temple of Justice; and the
erring. It will be short-sighted
advocates at the Bar, as well as arrogance not to accept this
the Judge upon the Bench, are obvious truth." PER OPUTA
equally ministers in that
J.S.C. (Pp. 86-87, Paras. G-A)
temple. The object of all
equally should be the
On the finality of the decisions
attainment of Justice… slow of the Apex court, Oputa said
and laborious and perplexed in Adegoke Motors v
and doubtful in its issue that Adesanya (1983) 3 NWLR (Pt
pursuit often proves; but we 109) 250 @ 274-275, that: We
are all judges, Jurous,
are final not because we are
advocates and Attorneys
infallible; rather we are
–together concerned in this
infallible because we are final.
search for truth: The pursuit Justices of this Court are
is a noble one, and those are human-beings, capable of
honoured who are then
erring. It will certainly be
instruments engaged in it”.
short sighted arrogance not to
This same sentiment has
accept this obvious truth. It is
always been expressed by
also true that this Court can
many other forthright judges do inestimable good through
against counsels' attitude
its wise decisions. Similarly,
aimed at frustrating the cause the Court can do incalculable
of justice. In KAYCEE
harm through its mistakes.
(NIGERIA) LIMITED VS
When therefore it appears to
PROMPT SHIPPING
learned counsel that any
CORPORATION LIMITED
decision of this Court has been
Owolabi Kolawole JCA as he given per incuriam, such
then was said. “I agree one
counsel should have the
reason why trials are unduly boldness and courage to ask
prolonged in many of the high that such a decision be overcourts are the attitude of
ruled. This Court has the
counsel who settle pleadings. power to over-rule itself (and
There are certain material facts has done so in the past) for it
which ought to be admitted by gladly accep