• October 25, 2016
  • Posted by: Stephen Azubuike
  • Category: Case Law Blog
No Comments
Where there is a dispute as to facts Originating Summons may still be used

Pam v. Mohammed [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1 at 88, paras. E-F, per Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory):


“It is not the law that once there is a dispute on facts, the matter should be commenced by writ of summons. No. That is not the law. The law is that the dispute on facts must be substantial, material, affecting the live issues in the matter. Where disputes are peripheral, not material to live issues, an action can be sustained by originating summons. After all, there can hardly be a case without facts. Facts make a case and it is the dispute in the facts that give rise to litigation.”

Notes:

The above case was cited by the Supreme Court, per Alagoa, JSC in Asogwa v. P.D.P. [2013] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1353) 207 at 284, para B.


Stephen Azubuike
Author: Stephen Azubuike
Stephen is a lawyer with expertise in Commercial Dispute Resolution and Technology Law practice. He is a Partner at Infusion Lawyers. He has successfully argued cases from the High Courts of various jurisdictions to the Appellate Courts on behalf of financial institutions, other corporate bodies and multinationals. He has advised a number of both established and startup tech companies. He tweets @siazubuike.

Law Practice as a Business

Law Practice as a Business discusses a critical aspect of law-practice business—the business of making money in legal practice. It shares some of the vital business strategies and distinct ideas peculiar to the legal industry. The ideas are presented with the clarity of thought and simplicity of language. Hopefully, this keeps you relaxed while activating your logical and innovative mind.

BUY FROM STORE
ANNOUNCING ‘LAW PRACTICE AS A BUSINESS’, A NEW BOOK ON THE BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY IN LEGAL PRACTICE
Send this to a friend