- Says, “better a bad judgment fast than a good one too late”
At a high-profile legal gathering in Abuja, on Wednesday, Nigeria’s appellate system, long regarded as the backbone of judicial correction and fairness, came under rare, penetrating scrutiny, as Benedict Bakwaph Kanyip delivered a keynote address that questioned whether appeals in Nigeria truly deliver justice, or merely prolong litigation.
Speaking at the public presentation of Ukala’s Manual on Appellate Practice at the Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Conference Centre, the President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria dissected the mechanics, contradictions, and unintended consequences of appellate practice in the country’s legal system.
At the event which was also the celebration of Emmanuel Ukala, SAN’s 70th birthday ceremony, Kanyip, equally also serves on the International Labour Organization Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, warned that while appeals are designed to correct judicial errors, there is no guarantee they produce just outcomes.
“The appellate process is meant to cure errors,” he noted, “but can it cure all errors? That remains the real question.”
At the heart of his argument was a stark reality: justice delayed can become justice denied. He pointed to cases that have dragged on for decades, including disputes that outlived the litigants themselves. In one striking example, a jurisdictional battle involving employment termination took 23 years to resolve—only for the claimant to die before the case concluded. The lesson, he suggested, is uncomfortable but clear: speed sometimes matters more than perfection.
Kanyip also exposed structural paradoxes within appellate decision-making. In one scenario, he illustrated how a majority ruling at the Supreme Court can override a broader consensus across lower courts—raising philosophical questions about fairness. “When six judges agree on a position but three determine the law, can that outcome truly be called just?” he asked.
The address further spotlighted controversial rulings and procedural inconsistencies, including disputes over massive financial awards and the interpretation of declaratory reliefs. Without naming motives, Kanyip questioned whether appellate courts sometimes overreach—particularly when granting reliefs not originally claimed or proven.
Beyond the courtroom, he hinted at systemic pressures within the legal profession itself. The pursuit of the prestigious Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) rank, he suggested, may be fuelling a surge in unnecessary or weak appeals, clogging already overburdened courts and diluting the quality of justice.
Quoting legal authorities and case law, Kanyip emphasized that not every judicial error warrants reversal and that appellate courts are not designed to retry cases emotionally or sentimentally. Instead, their role is to address only those errors that result in a miscarriage of justice, a threshold often misunderstood or misapplied.
Yet perhaps his most provocative argument was philosophical. The assumption that appellate courts inherently produce just outcomes, he said, is deeply flawed. The doctrine of precedent—central to common law systems—rests on the belief that higher court decisions are correct. But what if they are not?
He also challenged the culture of excessive appeals embedded in Nigeria’s constitutional framework, warning that it creates the impression that lower courts are incapable of delivering justice without supervision. This perception, he argued, undermines confidence in the judiciary and fuels a cycle of endless litigation.
Drawing comparisons with global judicial systems, Kanyip stressed that the role of a supreme court should not be to correct every error, but to clarify, develop, and stabilize the law on matters of public importance. Anything beyond that risks overwhelming the system and delaying justice for those who need it most.
His remarks come at a time when public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system is increasingly strained, with litigants and observers frequently lamenting outcomes as “judgment without justice”—a phrase that has gained traction in political and legal discourse.
In closing, Kanyip acknowledged the imperfection of both law and those who interpret it. Judges, he said, are human—and so are the systems they operate within. But he urged the legal community to confront uncomfortable truths about appellate practice and strive for reforms that prioritize fairness, efficiency, and genuine justice.
“Courts are not for truth,” he concluded pointedly. “They are for proof. And without proof, even the truth is powerless.”
Click here to download the paper.
Keynote-Address-at-Presentation-of-Ukalas-Manual-on-Appellate-Practice-29-April-2026
