By Amauche Onyedum, FNLI, FICMC, LL.M
Abstract
This critique scrutinizes the distinction between an issue raised suo motu by a court and a no-case submission or order of non-suit raised suo motu. It highlights their respective contexts, implications, and legal significance within Nigeria’s jurisprudential landscape. An understanding of this distinction is crucial for legal assistants, private practitioners, judicial officers, scholars, and other stakeholders navigating procedural nuances in litigation and legal drafting.
INTRODUCTION
Although rarely addressed in doctrinal clarity, uncertainty persists regarding issues raised suo motu and no-case submissions raised suo motu. This uncertainty necessitates scholarly interrogation.
Courts possess discretionary authority to intervene by raising matters on their own motion (suo motu). However, this power does not imply that a court may descend into the arena of litigation. This article distinguishes between suo motu issues and suo motu no-case submissions, with particular focus on Nigerian law. Though both concepts originate from judicial initiative, they differ significantly in application, scope, and effect.Court Case Tracking
SUO MOTU ISSUES
Definition
In the exercise of judicial discretion, courts are empowered to raise issues not presented or argued by the parties where necessary to ensure justice or legality. This act is termed suo motu, meaning “on its own motion.” Where a court raises, considers, and determines an issue not contemplated by the parties and not previously submitted for adjudication, such issue is said to have been raised suo motu.
See, U.B.N. Plc v. Awmar Properties Ltd., (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 64, 86 (SC); Uzoho v. N.C.P., (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 320, 345 (CA).
Purpose
The rationale for empowering courts to act suo motu is to promote fair trial, correct legal errors, and address jurisdictional defects. In Uche v. Orji, (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1988) 189, 207 (SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that where a court raises an issue suo motu, it must afford the parties an opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so constitutes a denial of fair hearing.
Procedure
As a general principle, whenever a court raises an issue suo motu, it is mandatory to invite the parties to address the court on that issue in compliance with the doctrine of fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
In Akingbulugbe v. Nirowi, (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1895) 339, 355 (SC), the Supreme Court held that where a court fails to invite addresses before resolving an issue raised suo motu, such failure amounts to a breach of fair hearing.
Exceptions
The rule is not absolute. Exceptions exist where the court may proceed without inviting further address, particularly where:
The issue relates to jurisdiction;
The issue concerns a statute of which the court must take judicial notice; or
The irregularity is apparent on the face of the record and implicates the fairness of proceedings.
See Idachaba v. Univ. of Agric., Makurdi, (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 209 (SC); Omokuwajo v. F.R.N., (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 300.
The court is not expected to ignore manifest irregularities merely because parties failed to raise them.Nigerian Politics Analysis
SUO MOTU NO-CASE SUBMISSION
Context
Section 302 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 empowers a court to raise and determine a no-case submission suo motu where the prosecution’s evidence fails to establish a prima facie case.
In Fagoriola v. F.R.N., (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1383) 323 (SC), the Supreme Court affirmed that at the close of the prosecution’s case, a court may discharge an accused person suo motu if no prima facie case has been made.
This power does not preclude the defendant from raising a no-case submission. Where the defendant raises it, the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to respond. However, where the court raises it suo motu, the determination is based solely on the evidence already adduced.
Non-Suit in Civil Proceedings
In civil proceedings, courts may enter an order of non-suit. Although conceptually distinct, it bears procedural similarity to a suo motu no-case ruling.
In Kachalla v. Banki, (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 364 (SC), the Supreme Court held that non-suit is appropriate where the plaintiff has not wholly failed but justice requires withholding judgment from both parties.
Similarly, in Balogun v. U.B.A. Ltd., (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 336, 348 (SC), the Court clarified that non-suit may be entered where the defendant is not entitled to judgment, and the plaintiff has not entirely failed.
Effect
Where a court raises and upholds a no-case submission suo motu, it need not invite further argument. The court evaluates the prosecution’s evidence and, if insufficient, records a finding of not guilty and discharges the defendant pursuant to Section 302 ACJA 2015.
By contrast, an order of non-suit does not determine the matter finally; it leaves room for recommencement of the action. See I.G.P. v. Sonoma, (2021) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1791) 489 (SC); Ishola v. Ajiboye, (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 352) 506 (SC).
DISTINCTION
The distinguishing factors include:
Opportunity to Address the Court:
A suo motu issue generally requires that parties be invited to address the court. A suo motu no-case ruling is based on the prosecution’s evidence already before the court.
Scope of Application:
A suo motu issue may arise in any proceeding. A no-case submission arises primarily in criminal trials, while non-suit applies in civil proceedings.
Objective:
A suo motu issue ensures procedural and substantive justice. A no-case submission primarily protects the defendant from unwarranted prosecution.
Effect on Proceedings:
A suo motu issue may lead to continuation or final determination. A successful no-case submission results in discharge. A non-suit allows the plaintiff to relitigate.
Stage of Invocation:
A suo motu issue may arise at any stage. A no-case submission or non-suit typically arises after the prosecution or claimant closes its case.
CONCLUSION
Within Nigeria’s jurisprudential framework, it is imperative to balance judicial initiative with the protection of parties’ rights. A clear distinction between suo motu issues and suo motu no-case submissions enhances procedural clarity and promotes doctrinal consistency. This distinction aids legal practitioners, judicial officers, scholars, and court officials in litigation strategy, judicial reasoning, and scholarly writing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Legal practitioners and judicial officers should cultivate a thorough understanding of the doctrinal scope of suo motu intervention. Greater clarity in procedural application is required to avoid confusion between judicial initiative and adversarial boundaries. Rigorous preparation, research, and doctrinal precision should guide the invocation and application of these principles.
In this article