Therefore, it is not sufficient for the purpose of reversing a judgment merely to show that an error of law was committed by the trial court or the appellate court; the appellant must further demonstrate or show that the error of law in the case occasioned a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the error must have substantially affected the result of the decision. See also Effiom v. Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1213) 106, wherein this Court per Tabai, JSC, observed:
“While the court has a duty to give the parties the opportunity to be heard on any issue it raises suo motu, a failure to do so does not necessarily lead to a reversal of its decision. To warrant an appellate court’s reversal of the decision, the appellant must go further to show that the failure to hear him on the point occasioned some miscarriage of justice. This principle that the court ought not to raise an issue suo motu and decide upon it without hearing from the parties applies mainly to issues of fact. In some special circumstances, the court can raise an issue of law or jurisdiction suo motu and without hearing parties, decide upon it.”
In the more recent case of Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd. v. Societe Generale Bank (2018) LPELR-43710(SC); (2018) 9NWLR (Pt. 1624) 230, Ogunbiyi, JSC, also observed that:
“The general principle is that the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard. However, authorities have shown that the failure to observe this principle would result into a misdirection, which will be overturned, only if there has been a substantive miscarriage of justice. An example is the case of Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 116) 387, where this Court held- “There is no doubt that the Court of Appeal committed a serious misdirection in the lead judgment when it inappropriately raised and considered new issues in the appeal before it. The question is: what is the effect of the misdirection, unless the misdirection is so grave as to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice, an Appeal Court will not ordinarily interfere with the decision of the lower court.”
CHIEF ISMAILA EHINLE & 2 Ors v IKORODU LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors – SC. 382/2007 decided on 8th May 2020