₦airaland Forum

Barrywilly:
It was wrong for the lawyer to be interrupting the magistrate while delivering his ruling. The best option is to appeal the ruling on the basis of his perceived wrongs. He deserved what he got even though it was wrong for the magistrate to take law into his own hand. You cannot be an accuser and the judge at the same time.

It was not wrong because The Courts should not make errors and should not be allowed to make any, thus, if and when there are errors it is only reasonable for counsel to point it out for quick correction.

But it was treacherous for the lawyer to go that far but I understand, given these wicked times which the magistrate would have understood except that he also complacent!

Fuckingmallam45:
Judiciary is an important pillar of democracy. If people are allowed to get away with disobeying or scandalizing the courts, it will not be possible for the Judiciary to function effectively. Therefore, we have a Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Contempt of court is of two types: (1) Civil Contempt, and (2) Criminal Contempt. Civil contempt means disobedience of any judgment or the order of the court given in an individual case. Criminal Contempt means scandalizing or lowering the dignity of the court, or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. Criminal contempt is taken more seriously by the courts, while in case of civil contempt the offender is generally let off if he obeys the order already given by the court and shows his regrets.

3. Punishment for contempt of court is six months imprisonment or fine up to 200,000or both. Only High Court and Supreme Court can punish for their own contempt or the contempt of a lower court. Thanks!!!

Bag of Cow Filth! If A Court does what is Right and Good All the Time, No One, I Repeat, No One will Disrespect it.

And if No one will disrespect it, then all these Chicken Excrement you put up there will not be necessary!

castiello:
Not I will advise you visit court proceedings regularly to understand how the law works, in the eye of the law no emotions they only follow what the law says, many time prosecutors and IPO are sent to jail for lack of competence even unlooker who don’t conduct themselves in court also visit prison regularly this is the law and Emotions is not involved for you to deliver justice you must see facts

You are talking about when a Court has conducted itself Rightly but when it does not, An offence is Committed and a Cry is let out!

And the Courts is the place where No Offence can and should be committed!

kingjooo:
you are absolutely correct,contempt of court is a judicial power bestowed on a trial judge/magistrate to punish whoever obstruct normal court proceedings.Judges don't normally listen to pleas whenever they exercise dis powers,it serve as detriment to others.To be a migistrate is not a day job.

Yeah, judges of unrightness!

7wonder:
I wouldn't say the Magistrate is wicked. Just to teach the lawyer a lesson because most lawyers do not respect the bench.

Wrong! A Judge can not be allowed to make an Error and in these days of errors, the lawyer's action is very understandable, thus, there is lesson to be taught here but an infliction of Injury.

Why the injury? Your guess is the same with mine if you want to be truthful!

7wonder:
In the instant case, the magistrate can be an accuser and a judge at the same time..that's the law. The procedure is to put the lawyer in the dock to explain the reason for his actions and if he doesn't give cogent reasons why he acted that way, the magistrate has the power to sentence him to prison. The post didn't really capture whether that procedure took place or not but I believe the lawyer couldn't give cogent reasons for his actions hence the sentence. That is contempt proceedings for you. In the lawyer's case, it was committed right in front of the judge which makes it difficult for the lawyer. Pleas from other counsel in Court cannot even avail him because emotions are not considered in law. Bless.

He had cogent reasons to attack the judge, to wit "corruption of the judiciary" a privilege and defence he could have enjoyed in the 80s but not today.

They are open to accusations!

westfield:
Why do people come up here and write rubbish without understanding how LAW works.......why should a mere lawyer challenge a magistrate is that what he was taught in law school ........why couldnt he wait and challenge the decision somewhere else........abeg dont be unfortunate

The work of The Law is to Uphold Rightness and Prevent Errors. Error is not Rightness!

AyakaDunukofia:
The lawyer shouldn't have interrupted the ruling regardless of his reasons. It is against the principles of court proceedings.

Nope, it is within the principles of proceedings that the Court should not be allowed to make any errors, omissions or mistake!

Dtruthspeaker:
Wrong! A Judge can not be allowed to make an Error and in these days of errors, the lawyer's action is very understandable, thus, there is lesson to be taught here but an infliction of Injury.

Why the injury? Your guess is the same with mine if you want to be truthful!

I hope you are contending by reason of sufficient experience but I make bold to say 'i dont think so' Hmmm..I don't know why you said a judge cannot be allowed to make an error. All judges err my friend. That is why you have right to appeal against any error in a ruling or decision. What do you think is contained in a notice of appeal? You will find write ups like "The learned trial judge erred when he held that....." The lawyer can bring the error or mistake to the attention of the magistrate after delivering the ruling and not while he was delivering the ruling. The lawyer should know the very basics of the practice of the law. Experientially stating, it is common and we see it in courts frequently when Counsel avert the minds of magistrates or Judges after a ruling is delivered to what was not said. I'll reiterate again that all judges err and are allowed to err that is why there is always a right of appeal against any part of a decision or ruling that wasn't favorable or occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Even the supreme court will say " We are supreme not because we are infallible but we are infallible because we are supreme". I don't know whether you are a lawyer or not but if you are, you should know the very basics of court proceedings that even law students are aware of. Whether the Counsel's action was understandable to people or not, to the magistrate, it is against the ethics of the profession.

Dtruthspeaker:
Nope, it is within the principles of proceedings that the Court should not be allowed to make any errors, omissions or mistake!

La wa o! Which principle? Where did you learn that one from? That is not within the framework of our legal jurisprudence. They are many persons on this forum who are here to garner knowledge and it is better we do not say a thing we know nothing of. I can see that you are not a lawyer. The magistrate is the one with both the yam and the knife. If he erred and refuse to correct the errors or mistakes even when his attention is drawn to it, you go upstairs. Have you heard of the saying "To Err is human?" I would quote Lord Denning at this juncture "God forbid that I know all the law." Please desist from misleading people. Bless.

Dtruthspeaker:
He had cogent reasons to attack the judge, to wit "corruption of the judiciary" a privilege and defence he could have enjoyed in the 80s but not today.

What cogent reasons? Is he practicing law in the 80's? He was in a good position to know the likely outcome of his acts. There are instances where a counsel can ask a judge or magistrate to recuse himself from a matter because he believes as a fact that the justice of a case is not being done..even the foregoing should be done with caution. He could also write to the Chief Judge and have the matter re-assigned or continued before another judge but not to interrupt or interject during ruling or accuse the bench head on. Go and stand before even an ordinary Area Court judge and tell him he is corrupt then you will know whatsup? Even when they know they do not have jurisdiction to entertain criminal matters, they can mess you up summarily. Let's be guided.

zoological gardens=> location

judicial protons=> institution

7wonder:
What cogent reasons?

you heard the reason the first time! This is the beginning of many Accusations to be flung at the bench for that is what it means for the Judiciary to be Corrupt!

They No Longer have the Protection of Rightness but are Open to Accusations.

7wonder:
Is he practicing law in the 80's? He was in a good position to know the likely outcome of his acts. There are instances where a counsel can ask a judge or magistrate to recuse himself from a matter because he believes as a fact that the justice of a case is not being done..even the foregoing should be done with caution. He could also write to the Chief Judge and have the matter re-assigned or continued before another judge but not to interrupt or interject during ruling or accuse the bench head on. Go and stand before even an ordinary Area Court judge and tell him he is corrupt then you will know whatsup? Even when they know they do not have jurisdiction to entertain criminal matters, they can mess you up summarily. Let's be guided.

Every way has its consequences however The Court must do no Wrong is The Law, it is not Governors Office or Theives Assembly but A Court of Rightness and this Court did not do Rightness!

Doraty1:
https://www.newtelegraphng.com/abuja-magistrate-orders-lawyer-handcuffed-jailed-for-challenging-him/

First, we've to establish if a case of interjection by the lawyer during the magistrate's ruling is an offense and/or contempt punishable by the sentence meted out to the erring lawyer. If yes, then the magistrate has a ground. But if otherwise, he should be brought to book for abuse of power and authority.

Dtruthspeaker:
you heard the reason the first time! This is the beginning of many Accusations to be flung at the bench for that is what it means for the Judiciary to be Corrupt!

They No Longer have the Protection of Rightness but are Open to Accusations.



Every way has its consequences however The Court must do no Wrong is The Law, it is not Governors Office or Theives Assembly but A Court of Rightness and this Court did not do Rightness!

You wouldn't understand. You just wouldn't understand except you are in the business.

7wonder:
La wa o! Which principle? Where did you learn that one from? That is not within the framework of our legal jurisprudence. They are many persons on this forum who are here to garner knowledge and it is better we do not say a thing we know nothing of. I can see that you are not a lawyer.

Continuing Legal Education!

Is it Not The Law that The Courts can do No Wrong? The question is why?

The Falls Answer promoted is that it is because The Court is Attached to the King and it is said that the King can Do No Wrong! Another Partially Untrue Answer for we have seen Kings do Wrongs!

Therefore what is the True Position? The Answer Lies in the Nature of A Court that is to dispense "Just Is" and Rightness.

If it is to dispense Rightness and Rightness Only, therefore, it can not dispense Wrongness and of course it can dispense wrongness but it must be aided by all the parties to prevent the doing of such.

7wonder:
The magistrate is the one with both the yam and the knife. If he erred and refuse to correct the errors or mistakes even when his attention is drawn to it, you go upstairs. Have you heard of the saying "To Err is human?" I would quote Lord Denning at this juncture "God forbid that I know all the law." Please desist from misleading people. Bless.

The Court is like a Cardio Surgeon, it must not make mistakes, mistake injures another and when another is injured wrongly, The Law is breached.

And how is conceivable that the place for the Remedy of Breaches itself is an Offender as the People it Judges?

I am sure you have not heard this Principle "The Tenets of The Law are to Live Honestly, to Harm No One and to Give to each His Due" hence why the judge holds "the yam and knife" as you said!

7wonder:
You wouldn't understand. You just wouldn't understand except you are in the business.

I am in the Practice and I have been burnt like him, so I think it just that ALL BE BURNT!

For This is No Law and This is No Court!

Exactly as the people of Israel did with God's Laws and His Courts!

Let's have a Fresh New Good Law and Court!

Dtruthspeaker:
I am in the Practice and I have been burnt like him, so I think it just that ALL BE BURNT!

For This No Law and This is No Court!

Exactly as the people of Israel did with God's Laws and His Courts!

Let's have a Fresh New Good Law and Court!

No, you are certainly not in the practice of law because you have stated things that a practicing lawyer even though one year at the bar would not.

Dtruthspeaker:
Continuing Legal Education!

Is it Not The Law that The Courts can do No Wrong? The question is why?

The Falls Answer promoted is that it is because The Court is Attached to the King and King can Do No Wrong! Another Partially Untrue Answer for we have seen do Wrongs!

Therefore what is the True Position? The Answer Lies in the Nature of A Court that is to dispense "Just Is" and Rightnes.

If it is to dispense Rightness and Rightness Only, therefore, it can not dispense Wrongness and of course it can dispense wrongness but it must be aided by all the parties to prevent the doing of such.



The Court is like a Cardio Surgeon, it must be not make mistakes, mistake injures another and when another is injured wrongly, The Law is breached.

And how is conceivable that the place for the Remedy of Breaches itself is an Offender as the People it Judges?

I am sure you have not heard this Principle "The Tenants of The Law are to Live Honestly, to Harm No One and to Give to each His Due" hence why the judge holds "the yam and knife" as you said!

Don't be so sure and confident. The position of the law is clear. If there is any perceived wrong or injustice, APPEAL. Don't confront the bench or make it obvious to him that you suspect connivance with opposing counsel. That is how it should be done. The law provided avenues for ventilating your grievance when faced with such situations. That principle you of Tenants of law bla bla you quoted is of no moment in the instant case and does not apply because the law is clear, APPEAL. In respect of the law being a cardio surgeon and must not make mistakes, how does that apply here? The courts will always make mistakes. They will always err and when they err what do you do? You use another avenue to correct that error. Look for an experienced lawyer close by to school you. I can see you are not contending from experience but from hearsay. I can understand you don't want to concede to the fact that you do not know how the law works so as not to be seen to be ignorant but please do not pass on that knowledge you acquired. The only superior argument you could pose is to the effect that Magistrates do not have the right to punish for contempt in facie curiae, that I will accept because there are plethora of authorities which I would readily provide for you to look through. The magistrate went ultra vires his powers but the truth and fact is the lawyer didn't use the right medium. Please scan through the case below. It is a supreme court authority. God bless you.

Now, let me point out that it is only a Superior Court of record that has inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.
See INEC & Anor V Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC)

It should be noted that the Court of Appeal had the opportunity to entertain this confusing situation in Adeyemi Candid-Johnson V Mrs Esther Edigi (2018) LPELR-45148(CA) where the court held that the Acting Chief Magistrate went beyond its powers and cited a counsel for contempt because the counsel' insisted that his submissions before the Court should be placed on record and also refused to answer a question which was put to him by the Court. The Magistrate considered the counsel’s conduct to be rude and contemptuous and ordered that he should be detained. The Court of Appeal, while condemning the act of the Magistrate held: “Apparently, when tempers rose rather meteorically, the respondent, exacerbated by the situation, unleashed this incisive question: "When did you leave the law school? The response, going by the record, was equally unrelenting: "I will refuse to answer that question in the rudest manner." It was the refusal to answer this question, according to the record, that broke the camel's back, and led to the detention of the appellant for contempt of court. It was unfortunate, to say the least, for the respondent, according to the records, to have taken leave of her exalted bench, invited counsel to extra-judicial dialogue, and thereafter descended into the arena of vituperative conflict with him”.

Achike JCA (as he then was) corroborated his reasonings with my fears and held;

"It is clearly improper and will expose the Administration of Justice to ridicule if a Magistrate or presiding officer of an inferior Court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke extrajudicial verbal exchange with counsel and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt"

Here, it will be said that the law of contempt only exists to uphold and ensure effective Administration of Justice and not for personal glory as we have seen in the case cited above. The power of the Court to punish for contempt must always be exercised to secure and protect the authority of the Court.
In fact, the powers should be sparingly exercised and only in serious cases.

The point I am struggling to make has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of INEC & Anor V Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC) that such arrant words or actions of the contemnor must be capable of interfering with the administration of justice by the court.

Let me also quickly agree with the Justices of the Apex Court in the above cases that it is only a Superior Court of record that has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.

Could it be safely said that the court did not abuse her powers to order that defense counsel be tried summarily, convicted and handcuffed to a gory place of safety to secure the ego and personal aggrandizement of the presiding officer

Copied

7wonder:
Don't be so sure and confident. The position of the law is clear. If there is any perceived wrong or injustice, APPEAL!

Not when a harm is being done by The Court, in the Presence of All Parties concerned.

Consider this, if the Court can accept corrections for dates, numbers and amount, in the face of the Court and in the Presence of the parties concerned, therefore it can be guided at material times to prevent the occasion of harm.

The Court Must Harm No One is Ultimate Law!

7wonder:
Don't confront the bench or make it obvious to him that you suspect connivance with opposing counsel. That is how it should be done. The law provided avenues for ventilating your grievance when faced with such situations. That principle you of Tenants of law bla bla you quoted is of no moment in the instant case and does not apply because the law is clear, APPEAL. In respect of the law being a cardio surgeon and must not make mistakes, how does that apply here? The courts will always make mistakes. They will always err and when they err what do you do? You use another avenue to correct that error. Look for an experienced lawyer close by to school you. I can see you are not contending from experience but from hearsay. It will be of no use to reel out judicial authorities here because it's only a fellow lawyer in the business that would understand. I can understand you don't want to concede to the fact that you do not know how the law works so as not to be seen to be ignorant but please do not pass on that knowledge you acquired.

All those beautiful judgements you applauded in school, where did they come from?

From a court that avoided the doing of a wrong! Denning said "When a man's house is burnt, he shall be homeless, and he suffers more than his initial suffering. Therefore let's prevent his house from being burnt that he may be protected from the elements" on Just is Delayed, is Just is Denied!

When your house is razed down let us see how you shall be willing to go through another process of acquiring a house, when you know that the burning down of your house could have been PREVENTED!

Dtruthspeaker:
Not when a harm is being done by The Court, in the Presence of All Parties concerned.

Consider this, if the Court can accept corrections for dates, numbers and amount, in the face of the Court and in the Presence of the parties concerned, therefore it can be guided at material times to prevent the occasion of harm.

The Must Harm No One is Ultimate Law!



All those beautiful judgements you applauded in school, where did they come from?

From a court that avoided the doing of a wrong! Denning said "When a man's house is burnt, he shall be homeless, and he suffers more than his initial suffering. Therefore let's prevent his house from being burnt that he may be protected from the elements" on Just is Delayed, is Just is Denied!

When your house is razed down let us see how you shall be willing to go through another process of acquiring a house, when you know that the burning down of your house could have been PREVENTED!

Lol. I am clearly wasting my time. You are not a lawyer and won't bow to superior arguments because of pride. Take care.

7wonder:
No, you are certainly not in the practice of law because you have stated things that a practicing lawyer even though one year at the bar would not.

I do not conform to things which are Not True or Just or Right or Good! Nay, I will never follow!

Even if this world explodes, Right Must be Done and not wrongs, The Court Must Never be Allowed to Do A Wrong!

7wonder:
Lol. I am clearly wasting my time. You are not a lawyer and won't bow to superior arguments because of pride. Take care.

you wish!

Clearly, you do not care about being Prosecuted by Another Greater and Higher Court who shall find you Guilty of the same Offences wherewith you have convicted others even in your and by the standards of your corrupt courts!

Any lawyer who hates conviction and damnation would steer away from it!

7wonder:
I hope you are contending by reason of sufficient experience but I make bold to say 'i dont think so' Hmmm..I don't know why you said a judge cannot be allowed to make an error.

At the bolded!
Simply because you do not know the things which you are supposed to know since you are been led by Deceivers and Snakes, and have been completely deceived and yet you still do not know it!

And from your continued statements, you have so many "you do not knows," So when would you start knowing?

7wonder:
... In respect of the law being a cardio surgeon and must not make mistakes, how does that apply here? The courts will always make mistakes.

Lies!

You and all Wrong Doers NEED (like Air to man) the Courts to make "Mistakes" so that your Wrong and Wicked Doings would not be Spotted and Condemned.

Therefore, promoting an Increase in the Doing of Wickedneses and yet having the validation of a certain judge or Magistrate!

Cursed indeed are you Lawyers and Judges and further cursed are you, for cursing yourselves!

7wonder:
Don't be so sure and confident. The position of the law is clear. If there is any perceived wrong or injustice, APPEAL. Don't confront the bench or make it obvious to him that you suspect connivance with opposing counsel. That is how it should be done. The law provided avenues for ventilating your grievance when faced with such situations. That principle you of Tenants of law bla bla you quoted is of no moment in the instant case and does not apply because the law is clear, APPEAL. In respect of the law being a cardio surgeon and must not make mistakes, how does that apply here? The courts will always make mistakes. They will always err and when they err what do you do? You use another avenue to correct that error. Look for an experienced lawyer close by to school you. I can see you are not contending from experience but from hearsay. I can understand you don't want to concede to the fact that you do not know how the law works so as not to be seen to be ignorant but please do not pass on that knowledge you acquired. The only superior argument you could pose is to the effect that Magistrates do not have the right to punish for contempt in facie curiae, that I will accept because there are plethora of authorities which I would readily provide for you to look through. The magistrate went ultra vires his powers but the truth and fact is the lawyer didn't use the right medium. Please scan through the case below. It is a supreme court authority. God bless you.

Now, let me point out that it is only a Superior Court of record that has inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.
See INEC & Anor V Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC)

It should be noted that the Court of Appeal had the opportunity to entertain this confusing situation in Adeyemi Candid-Johnson V Mrs Esther Edigi (2018) LPELR-45148(CA) where the court held that the Acting Chief Magistrate went beyond its powers and cited a counsel for contempt because the counsel' insisted that his submissions before the Court should be placed on record and also refused to answer a question which was put to him by the Court. The Magistrate considered the counsel’s conduct to be rude and contemptuous and ordered that he should be detained. The Court of Appeal, while condemning the act of the Magistrate held: “Apparently, when tempers rose rather meteorically, the respondent, exacerbated by the situation, unleashed this incisive question: "When did you leave the law school? The response, going by the record, was equally unrelenting: "I will refuse to answer that question in the rudest manner." It was the refusal to answer this question, according to the record, that broke the camel's back, and led to the detention of the appellant for contempt of court. It was unfortunate, to say the least, for the respondent, according to the records, to have taken leave of her exalted bench, invited counsel to extra-judicial dialogue, and thereafter descended into the arena of vituperative conflict with him”.

Achike JCA (as he then was) corroborated his reasonings with my fears and held;

"It is clearly improper and will expose the Administration of Justice to ridicule if a Magistrate or presiding officer of an inferior Court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke extrajudicial verbal exchange with counsel and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt"

Here, it will be said that the law of contempt only exists to uphold and ensure effective Administration of Justice and not for personal glory as we have seen in the case cited above. The power of the Court to punish for contempt must always be exercised to secure and protect the authority of the Court.
In fact, the powers should be sparingly exercised and only in serious cases.

The point I am struggling to make has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of INEC & Anor V Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC) that such arrant words or actions of the contemnor must be capable of interfering with the administration of justice by the court.

Let me also quickly agree with the Justices of the Apex Court in the above cases that it is only a Superior Court of record that has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.

Could it be safely said that the court did not abuse her powers to order that defense counsel be tried summarily, convicted and handcuffed to a gory place of safety to secure the ego and personal aggrandizement of the presiding officer

Copied

thank you.the lawyer involved should not have interrupted the ruling.that was his error .the magistrate should have invited the lawyer and the senior members of the bar to his Chamber.both of them deserves sanction,they are both engaged in improper conduct.the magistrate will most likely be removed from the bench if it is found as a matter of fact that he attributed to the lawyer what the lawyer did not said because by so doing he acted provocatively.


the truth is 70percent of those being appointed magistrates and judges and SANS of recent are most unfit in learning and in character and we should expect more of these scenarios.

Dtruthspeaker:
Lies!

You and all Wrong Doers NEED (like Air to man) the Courts to make "Mistakes" so that your Wrong and Wicked Doings would not be Spotted and Condemned.

Therefore, promoting an Increase in the Doing of Wickedneses and yet having the validation of a certain judge or Magistrate!

Cursed indeed are you Lawyers and Judges and further cursed are you, for cursing yourselves!

GBAM!!! (so falls the Gavel).

Dtruthspeaker:
Nope, it is within the principles of proceedings that the Court should not be allowed to make any errors, omissions or mistake!

Nope, that is why the appeal process exists. A superior court could have reviewed the point of law in contention and address it. He could have valid reasons but his action, for whatever reason(s) constituted contempt of court.

"Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court".

AyakaDunukofia:
Nope, that is why the appeal process exists. A superior court could have reviewed the point of law in contention and address it. He could have valid reasons but his action, for whatever reason(s) constituted contempt of court.

The Court Must Do No Wrong is The Absolute Law hence, errors, mistakes, untrue representations and misrepresentations when spotted, it is allowed to draw the attention of the Court to such Wrongs Immediately to Prevent the Court from doing a wrong.

And in this case it is reported that the lawyer's objection was on the basis of wrongful and untruthful representation which must not be allowed to pollute the Judgement of the Court on the basis that "A Court must do no wrong".

And not on the ground of the "lawful" opinion of the Court which he could appeal against if he thought it was Wrong.

But Untruthful Representation is a Prima-facie Wrong Ab Initio that can not be allowed in any Judgement at all!

And if it can be timeously prevented, it must be so prevented!

AyakaDunukofia:
"Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court".

I understand the purpose of the Contempt Law but It not contempt when a Wrong is Committed by an Authority and it is immediately pointed out to them that they have done a Wrong!

The Contempt Law is based on the fact that The Court ALWAYS DO RIGHT AND ARE BEYOND ACCUSATION OR FAULT!

But a liar, a fraud, a cheat, a thief and a corrupt person MUST BE CONTEMPTIBLE and Disdained!

Dtruthspeaker:
The Court Must Do No Wrong is The Absolute Law hence, errors, mistakes, untrue representations and misrepresentations when spotted, it is allowed to draw the attention of the Court to such Wrongs Immediately to Prevent the Court from doing a wrong.

And in this case it is reported that the lawyer's objection was on the basis of wrongful and untruthful representation which must not be allowed to pollute the Judgement of the Court on the basis that "A Court must do no wrong".

And not on the ground of the "lawful" opinion of the Court which he could appeal against if he thought it was Wrong.

But Untruthful Representation is a Prima-facie Wrong Ab Initio that can not be allowed in any Judgement at all!

And if it can be timeously prevented, it must be so prevented!



I understand the purpose of the Contempt Law but It not contempt when a Wrong is Committed by an Authority and it is immediately pointed out to them that they have done a Wrong!

The Contempt Law is based on the fact that The Court ALWAYS DO RIGHT AND ARE BEYOND ACCUSATION OR FAULT!

But a liar, a fraud, a cheat, a thief and a corrupt person MUST BE CONTEMPTIBLE and Disdained!

There is a reason for the maxim!

The King or the court can do no wrong is a foundational principle of the Common law. IT IS DELIBERATE. And one of the factors that has defined the success of the Common law is CERTAINTY. 

There needs to be certainty not only in the law but also in the principle of the administration of justice, so said King Henry II. If a court ADMITTEDLY does wrong, it ceases to be a court and consequently loses power to hear and settle a matter. Hence the process of an APPEAL to another court.

AyakaDunukofia:
There is a reason for the maxim!
The King or the court can do no wrong is a foundational principle of the Common law. IT IS DELIBERATE. And one of the factors that has defined the success of the Common law is CERTAINTY. 

There needs to be certainty not only in the law but also in the principle of the administration of justice, so said King Henry II. If a court ADMITTEDLY does wrong, it ceases to be a court and consequently loses power to hear and settle a matter. Hence the process of an APPEAL to another court.

do you know the reason? For you did not state it? (I do, but I wish to hear you if you shall say anything beyond what you learnt in school )

Dtruthspeaker:
do you know the reason? For you did not state it? (I do, but I wish to hear you if you shall say anything beyond what you learnt in school )

I don't think we'd be wandering this long if you knew it. May be it's possible in your Nigeria, but could you mention a saner clime where an aggrieved party interrupted a court proceeding in his or her favour?

One of the seminal cases that dealt with contempt of court was Att.-Gen. v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50

Again, it was ruled in that case that, “contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law. Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms” Did the so called lawyer do anything different?

I want you to agree with you, but you haven't convinced me yet