The Importance of Court Rulings in Objections and Other Matters.

By P. L Osakwe

● Introduction

In every court proceeding, parties often raise objections, whether on admissibility of evidence, competence of a party, jurisdiction of the court, or procedural irregularities. These objections are not mere interruptions to the flow of trial; they are vital tools for ensuring that justice is done in accordance with the law.

But the real significance lies in what the court does after an objection is raised. It is only when a court delivers a ruling that the matter becomes a “decision” capable of being appealed. Until then, the objection remains an unresolved argument with no legal effect outside the trial court.

■ Why Court Rulings Are Essential

1. To Secure the Right of Appeal

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the right of appeal from the “decisions” of courts. A decision includes rulings and judgments. This means a higher court can only intervene where the lower court has made a pronouncement. If a judge listens to an objection but refuses to rule on it, the aggrieved party is left without an appealable issue. The right of appeal is effectively denied, even though the objection was raised.

2. To Ensure Procedural Fairness

Every objection touches on a right, whether it concerns the fairness of admitting a piece of evidence, the authority of the court to hear the matter, or the competence of the proceedings. A ruling provides clarity, ensuring that the trial proceeds on a clear and just foundation. Without a ruling, the trial risks being built on uncertainty and procedural imbalance.

3. To Hold the Court Accountable

The judiciary thrives on transparency. A ruling is not only a decision but also a reasoning process on record. It compels the judge to explain why one party’s argument prevails over the other. This accountability fosters trust in the justice system and ensures that every party leaves the court knowing their objection was not ignored.

4. To Define the Boundaries of the Trial

Some objections, such as those challenging the jurisdiction of the court, determine whether the proceedings can lawfully continue at all. If no ruling is given, the trial may proceed on a defective foundation, exposing it to nullification later. By ruling on objections, the court sets clear boundaries for the scope and validity of the proceedings.

■ Practical Implications

1. For lawyers and litigants, the principle is straightforward:
2. Always insist on a ruling. Raising an objection is not enough; the court must pronounce on it.
3. Do not rely on assumptions. The mere recording of an objection in the court’s notes does not make it appealable; only a ruling does.
4. Preserve the record. Since appeals are taken from decisions, having a ruling ensures that the appellate court has something concrete to review.

□ Constitutional and Procedural Foundations.

The Right of Appeal: The Constitution expressly provides that an appeal lies from the decisions of a court. By implication, no ruling means no appeal.

Fair Hearing: Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees fair hearing. A fair hearing requires that every objection raised by a party is addressed and determined. A court that fails to rule on objections risks denying the party their right to fair hearing.

Judicial Duty: It is part of a judge’s duty to pronounce on every material point raised before the court. Justice demands that no issue should be left hanging unresolved.

■ Conclusion

The importance of a court ruling in objections and other matters is foundational to justice. A ruling transforms arguments into decisions and creates a platform for appellate scrutiny. Without it, objections remain powerless, litigants are denied their constitutional right of appeal, and the trial itself is left standing on shaky ground.

In the end, justice is not complete until the court rules. For without a ruling, there is no decision and without a decision, there can be no appeal, no accountability, and no true assurance that justice has been done.