To have easy access to a court of law to invoke its jurisdiction to determine issues between you and another party, you must disclose sufficient interest in the subject matter in your writ of summons and statement of claim.
Ogbonna v. Ogwuegbu (2026) 6 NWLR (Pt. 2038) 141
My Dad died three months ago ,my mom called us this morning for a family meeting ,she said she wants to move on with her life ,my mama don get boyfriend o ๐ญ๐ญi am not the type that brings my family gist on social media but guys ,believe me,I am deeply hurt ๐ญ
i hate to say but financial stability allows you to be romantic and love properly. being broke keeps you in a survival mode and leaves you with little time or energy for romance.
โฆwants to use his brother for business. Except the 100k weekly is to go into an investment portfolio heโll co-own with his brother subject agreed splits on the returns, heโs trying to enslave his brother with the guise of trying to help him. What happens if the brother defaults?
My guy in the UK ๐ฌ๐ง wants to buy a Keke for his elder brother in Nigeria.
The man is married with 5 kids, so my guy wants him to have something to hustle with.
But there's a condition: theyโll put everything in writing, and his brother will remit โฆ100k every week.
Now family members are calling my guy, asking if he wants to enslave his own elder brother because he wants to help him.
My guy's argument is simple: โIt's a business. โฆ100k weekly is the standard return for Keke drivers,โ
My guy is asking me if he went too far.๐ค
One hack that might be very useful for lawyers who want to start drafting pleadings is to model them on decided cases, preferably decisions of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
For instance, foundational learning and most textbooks would expose you to the elements of contracts, but cases often give life to those elements and add nuances.
It is not uncommon to see textbooks stating that three elements must be established to sustain a claim, while decided cases would present four, five, or even six elements.
So, if you have a brief on the tort of defamation, for instance, you may need to get three recent decisions of appellate courts or one of those compendiums on libel and slander where cases are reported. It could form a blueprint for what your pleadings and witness statements should focus on.
You have it by your side while examining your facts to see where exactly they fit in.
If you meet the rigours of what some of those decisions prescribe, the chances of success are very high. Alternatively, you will immediately realise that your case isn't strong.
When you do this consistently for, say, two years across different matters, you become self-sufficient without having to rely on them. You then need to pay attention to more recent decisions and how they fundamentally or slightly depart from the blueprint that you know.
In addition, this suggested style comes with a bonus: foresight. You could almost certainly anticipate possible objections and defences to your claim. And if you are on the defence, you will easily spot omissions. I used this style for abiut 3 to 4 years and I often predict possible objections and when they come, I always smile.
For instance, I spotted a Supreme Court decision on the tort of defamation late last year (I won't disclose it). From it, I realised that two of the common reliefs sought in defamation matters cannot go together. You must choose one of those particular two.
Yet, there are many decisions of lower courts where the two reliefs are often granted, and I realised that this could be informed by the fact that the defence was not aware of it.
Law is actually a deeply strategic vocation and that's why I approach every opposing counsel with suspicion, respect, and caution, because if we do it like we are meant to do it, every lawyer you appear against is up to something.
And you might realise it when it is too late.