The Graveyard Of Cases: How Timing Can Kill Justice
When the Court Walks Away, It’s Not Always Defeat
Mootness vs. Merit: The Distinction Courts Assume You Know
NIGERIA’S legal system suffers from a public-communication deficit: complex judicial doctrines are delivered in dense rulings but rarely translated for mass understanding. One of the most misreported is the doctrine of mootness—often summarised by judges as a matter having become “an academic exercise.”
The doctrine is routinely confused with loss on the merits. Yet, in appellate practice, mootness is a threshold question, addressed before merit. It asks: Can the court still grant the remedy sought? Not: Was the claimant right?
Why Courts Avoid Post-Mortem Justice
Judicial power is remedial. Once a remedy cannot affect the legal status of the parties, the case no longer presents a “real controversy.” The Supreme Court has stressed that its original jurisdiction cannot be invoked for matters that do not show an existing dispute capable of resolution through constitutional reliefs.
The court may decline further hearing even where the legal issues raised are grave—such as the legality of an appointment, dissolution of a democratic structure, or enforcement of fundamental rights—if the practical consequence of a ruling would amount to an opinion without effect.
Case Scenarios That Die Without Judgment
Common triggers include:
-
completed actions the court cannot reverse (e.g., a demolition already carried out, an election already conducted, or a contract already terminated);
-
expired tenures or abolished offices;
-
statutory amendments that have replaced the legal framework being challenged; or
-
settlements or compliance steps taken outside court.
What “Academic” Doesn’t Mean
A court calling a matter academic is not:
-
endorsing the respondent’s conduct,
-
trivialising the claimant’s grievance, or
-
concluding that the claimant argued poorly.
It is instead applying judicial self-restraint to avoid futility.
Delay Is the Enemy, Not the Judge
The doctrine’s practical lesson is prosecutorial, not philosophical: timing is evidence. A claimant who waits too long may still be correct on the law but irrelevant on remedy. The courtroom rewards urgency more reliably than social media rewards outrage.
