The judiciary is saddled with the primary duty of interpreting the law enacted by the legislature. The objective of the courts in the course of exercising this primary duty is to discover the intention of the legislature through the wording of the law. And in this process, the courts apply various rules to achieve this objective.
The three main rules of interpretation are;
1. THE LITERAL RULE: In this rule, the meaning of the law must be deducible from its face i.e words used in the statute are to be construed in their ordinary, natural or usual grammatical sense regardless of the hardship or manifest absurdity it may produce. According to the court in
Peerage’s case, if the wording of the law is clear then, no more is necessary than to expound it’s ordinary and natural meaning.
The principle that the wording of a law is to be construed literally is only a general principle which must be applied only where the wording is clear and unambiguous. An example of a case where this rule was applied is R v. Bangaza (1960) 5 F.S.C. 1.
2. THE GOLDEN RULE: This rule was established in Beck v. Smith (1836) 2 M. & W. 191 at p. 195, where the court stated, “it is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used or to the grammatical construction unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, or leads to manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience but no further.”
It therefore, follows that where the words to be interpreted are ambiguous, it is the duty of the court to interpret the words in such a manner as to avoid absurdity. A classic example of the application of the Golden Rule was given in Council of the University of Ibadan v. Adamolekun (1967) 1 All N. L. R. 213.
3. THE MISCHIEF RULE: According to
Dugdale and Farrar , this rule is also known as, “interpretation by reference to statutory purpose.” In applying this rule, the courts usually find the purpose of the law i.e the courts usually consider how the law stood prior to the enactment of the statute and discern the shortcomings or mischief of the old law which the new law has come to remedy or cure. The court is then, to construe the statute in such a manner as to “ suppress the mischief” and “advance the remedy” as in Heydon’s case.
Aside the three main rules of interpretation, there are other general principles of interpretation such as;
1. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – the law does not compel the doing of impossibilities.
2. UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT – it may rather have effect than be destroyed. This principle applies where a provision is susceptible of two interpretations and it is found that by one interpretation, the provision would be valid and by the other, it would be invalid.
3. INTERNAL AIDS: In interpreting a provision of a statute, other parts of the statutes are referred to by the courts. For example, the interpretation section of the statute.
4. EXTERNAL AIDS: This includes dictionaries, other statutes which apply subject to the provisions of the statute under interpretation.

The capacity to contract is another essential element of the formation of a contract. A contract may not be enforceable against certain categories of people even when all elements which go to make a valid contract are present. One of this categories of people is an “infant.”

An infant, for the purpose of contractual transactions, is a person under the age of twenty one who has limited legal capacity to contract. The capacity of an infant with regard to contracts are expressly stated in the Infants Relief Act of 1874.

The Act specifically declares that three particular types of contracts with infants are absolutely void. These are;
1. Contracts of loan i.e lending money to an infant.
2. Contracts for goods other than necessaries.
3. Accounts stated i.e a claim by one party to payment of a definite amount.

Secondly, the Act stipulated that it is not possible for an infant to ratify at majority, those contracts which were formerly not binding on an infant unless ratified by him after the attainment of majority e.g goods other than necessaries. However, an infant could repudiate at majority, those contracts that were formerly binding on an infant e.g interest on property.

“Necessaries” as used in number 2 above, is defined in section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1893, as goods suitable to the condition in life of an infant. Thus, where an infant contracts for necessaries, he must pay a reasonable price thereof but, where an infant contracts for goods other than necessaries, the contract is void. See
Nash v. Inman (1908) 2 K.B 1.

An infant may enter into contracts of apprenticeship, service or education which are of obvious advantage to him however, such a contract must be substantially for the benefit of the infant otherwise, he would be free to repudiate it.

NOTE; If an infant fraudulently misrepresents his age by deceiving the other party that he is over twenty one and if on that basis, the other party contracts with the infant, the plea of infancy and all privileges associated with it are still open to the dishonest infant. But in certain cases, equity will grant relief against the infant, by compelling him to restore his ill-gotten gains or release the deceived from obligation in law induced by the fraud. The equitable doctrine which makes this possible is known as the doctrine of restitution, for the Act is not to be used as an engine of fraud.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2019/02/13/capacity-to-contract-infant/

As has earlier been stated, consideration need only be sufficient not adequate. It must have value in the eye of the law. The scope of what is valuable in the eye of the law has no judicial analysis however, legal scholars have contributed much to the subject. According to Cheshire and Fitfoot, the judges have been content to deny the name of consideration to certain acts or promises without attempting to generalize the grounds of their prohibition and it may well be that the process of judicial thought is empirical and may not lend itself to ex post facto rationalization.
Consideration must not be of monetary or economic value to be sufficient in the eye of the law. According to JC Smith, all that is necessary is that the defendant should, expressly or impliedly ask for something in return for his promise or act. If he gets what he asked for, then the promise is sufficient consideration unless there is some vitiating factor. Thus, consideration does not have to be of economic value, it must be clear that it was what the defendant requested, it may be quite useless to either party and it must be something owned by the party giving it out or at least something he is entitled. See
Bainbridge v. Firestone (1838) 8 A&E 743 and Haigh v. Brooks (1839) 10 A&E 309.
There are cases where performance of a duty is not sufficient consideration. They are;
1. Performance of a duty imposed by law: A party cannot enforce a promise made to him in exchange for his legal duty. Since he’s under a public duty, his actual performance or promise to do so does not constitute consideration. See Collins v. Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950. If, however, the plaintiff acts or promises to act in excess of his duty under the law, then this would constitute consideration. See Glassbrook Brothers LTD v. Glamorgan County Council (1925) AC 270.
2. Performance of a duty imposed by contract with a promisor i.e where plaintiff is already under contractual duty to defendant. If a party to a contract simply promises to carry or carries out an already existing contractual duty to the defendant, he has offered no consideration for any fresh promise that might have been made by the defendant. See Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 2 Camp. 317.
However, as is the case with duties imposed by law, if the plaintiff act or promises to act in excess of his contractual obligation to the defendant, such a promise would constitute consideration. See Hartley v. Ponsonboy (1857) 7 E&B 872.
3. Performance imposed by contract with a third party: this is the situation in which X, who is already bound by contract to do something for Y, relies on the performance of that act as consideration for a fresh promise made to him by Z. Unlike the two earlier situations, the courts have consistently held that in relation to the new promise made by Z, X’s performance of his already existing obligation to Y is good consideration. See Scotson v. Pegg (1861) 6 H&N 295.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2019/01/21/sufficiency-of-consideration/

A citizen is a person with full rights in a country. A person can become a citizen of a country by birth, registration or naturalization.
Citizenship by birth is acquired when a person is born in a particular country however, not all countries recognize the birthright citizenship. In Nigeria, a person is a citizen by birth if either of his parents or grandparents belongs or belonged to a community in Nigeria or if either of his parents or grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria and every person born outside Nigeria, either of whose parents or grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria. See section 25 of the 1999 CFRN (as amended)
Citizenship can also be acquired by registration. In Nigeria, a person may acquire citizenship by registration if the president is satisfied that;
a. he is a person of good character
b. he has shown a clear intention of his desire to be domiciled in Nigeria
c. he has taken the Oath of Allegiance prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.
A person who wishes to naturalize may apply for the grant of citizenship by naturalization. In Nigeria, the president may grant a person the certificate of naturalization if he’s satisfied that;
a. he is a person of full age and capacity
b. he is a person of good character
c. he has shown a clear intention of his desire to be domiciled in Nigeria
d. he is a person who is capable of making useful contribution to the progress and well-being of Nigeria
e. he has taken the Oath of Allegiance prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. Etc. See section 27 of the 1999 constitution (as amended)
https://lawstudentaide.com/2019/01/17/citizenship/

A writ of summons usually called ‘a writ’ is one of the modes an action may commence in civil proceedings. A writ of summons is a formal document addressed to the defendant requiring him to enter an appearance personally or by a solicitor and state that in case of default of appearance, the plaintiff may proceed with the action and judgment may be given in the defendant’s absence.
A writ contains formal indorsements and is accompanied by indorsements of claim which states the plaintiff’s claim. An indorsement of claim may be special or general. A writ is said to be specially indorsed when it contains a statement of claim thus, a special indorsement of claim is a statement of claim appearing on a writ while a general indorsement of claim states the summary of the claim and is served together with the writ.
A formal indorsement must appear on a writ whether specially indorsed or not. Formal indorsements include plaintiff’s address for service or the solicitor’s name and address for service, etc.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2018/12/11/writ-of-summons/

Consideration is an essential element of the formation of a contract. Consideration gives a party the right to enforce a contract. Unless the agreement is made under seal, only a party who has furnished consideration can enforce a contract.
The most concise definition of consideration was given in the famous case of Currie v. Misa (1875) L.R 10 Exch. 153 at p. 162. In that case, consideration was defined as a right, interest or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment or loss given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Thus, consideration does not only consist of profit by one party but also exist where the other party abandons some legal rights, part with his possession at some point. In other words, any act or promise accepted by one party to a contract as the price for his own act or promise is sufficient consideration.
The statement, “consideration must move from the promisee” simply means that only a party that has furnished consideration can enforce a contract. Total failure of consideration on the part of the promisee (the plaintiff) can take three forms;
1. Gratuitous promise: A gratuitous promise is a promise made without consideration and is usually unenforceable. For example; if A promises to pay for B’s university education till graduation without any corresponding act or promise from B, A could withdraw his promise at any time without legal liability because B lacks consideration. However, where the gratuitous promise is made under seal, A, in the example above, would be bound to fulfill his promise because in contracts made under seal, the element of consideration is dispensed with.
2. Non performance by promisee: Parties to a contract have obligations to perform under it. Where the promisee (plaintiff) or the other party has not performed his obligation under the contract, any attempt to enforce the contract will fail for want of consideration.
3. When consideration is furnished by a third party: According to the doctrine of privity, a contract does not confer enforceable rights or any obligation made under it on any person except parties to it. Only a party to a contract can enforce it. Therefore, any action based on consideration furnished by a third party will fail.
There are three types of consideration namely;
1. Executory Consideration: Consideration is said to be executory when a promise is made in exchange for a promise thus, the consideration of both parties is their promises to each other. Here, it is the exchange of promises that constitutes the contract.
2. Executed Consideration: Consideration is said to be executed when an act is performed in return for a promise. It is associated with unilateral contracts. See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke ball Co. (1893) 1 Q.B 256. It should be noted that, only one party, the offeror or promisor, is under a contractual obligation at any relevant period in an executed consideration.
3. Past Consideration : Consideration is said to be past when an act is performed before a contract is made. It is a consideration that is already given or some act that is already performed before a contract comes into existence. Past consideration is not a valid consideration. In Re McArdle , a testator left a house jointly to his children. The wife of one of the children, who was living in the house with her husband spent a lot of money making improvements and carrying out alterations to the house. Later on, the other children jointly signed a document agreeing to pay her 488 pounds for expenses in improving the house. Subsequently, they failed to pay and she sued. It was held that the agreement was not binding on the children because she (the plaintiff) had already completed the works on the house before the promise to repay her was made therefore, her consideration was past.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2019/01/07/consideration/

System interference is an offence under the Nigerian Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015
by virtue of sections 8 and 16(3).
The Cybercrimes Act explains system interference as when a person, who, without lawful authority, intentionally or for fraudulent purposes does an act which causes directly or indirectly a serious hindering of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging or deleting or altering computer data which prevents the computer system or any part thereof, from functioning in accordance with its intended purpose. System interference could be done through cutting cables, damaging hardware components of the computer system, installing computer viruses, etc.
A person, who commits the offence of system interference is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or to a fine of not more than N5,000,000 or both.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2019/01/04/system-interference/

This is a very important right and can be seen as the determinant of personhood. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Section 34 of the 1999 CFRN as amended provides;
34 (1) Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly –
(a) no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.
(b) no person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and
(c) no person shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
There are some exceptions to sub-section (1) (c). See s. 34 (2) of the 1999 CFRN as amended.
Paragraph (a) above states that an individual has a right against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. According to Professor B.O Nwabueze, this covers not only the type of punishment meted out to an offender, but his punishment in police custody and prison e.g medical neglect, beating prisoners, starvation, etc. As was rightly stated in the case of Agbakoba v. Commissioner of Police (1994) 6 NWLR (pt 351) 475 that if the purpose of detention is to acheive ill treatment as means of punishment, total release would be ordered by the court. It also covers all such treatment whether by goverments, its agencies or individuals. In fact, any punishment or treatment incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society is repulsive i.e what might not have been regarded as inhuman decades ago may be revolting to the new sensitivities which emerge as civlization advances. See Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney General S.C 73/93 14 Human Rights L.J 323 (1993).
Paragraph (b) states that no person shall be held in slavery or servitude. This provision is quite clear but it extends to situations where individuals are unlawfully imprisoned and where individuals do certain acts under compulsion.
Lastly, paragraph (c) prohibits forced or compulsory labour however, subsection (2) lists exceptions to this provision, some of which are; any labour required in consequence of the sentence of a court, any labour required of members of the armed forces of the Federation or the Nigeria Police Force in pursuant to their duties, etc.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2018/12/12/right-to-dignity-of-human-person-constitutional-law/

[left][/left]The right to life is the foremost of all rights without which all other rights are unenforceable. Life begins at conception thus, a child has the right to life from his mother’s womb. Every human being has an inherent right to life and this right is protected by law. The right to life is enshrined in the 1999 CFRN as amended by virtue of
section 33.
Section 33 (1) of the 1999 constitution prohibits any intentional deprivation of life except in execution of a sentence of a court with respect to a criminal offence. Thus, the death sentence of a court is an exception to the right to life. However, children under 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence cannot be sentenced to death and any sentence on a pregnant woman must be commuted until she is delivered of her baby.
Section 33 (2) provides for circumstances wherein a person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) provides for circumstances of self defence or defence of another and defence of property. Paragraph (b) provides for circumstances of death in the process of effecting a lawful arrest or preventing the escape of a person lawfully detained and paragraph (c)
provides for circumstances of death as a result of the suppression of riot or mutiny.
NOTE: Death in the process of effecting a lawful arrest dosen’t mean a police officer has the right to kill a person who has refused to be arrested. Where there is no voluntary submission on the part of the person to be arrested, assault on the part of the police officer to effect arrest would be lawful.
https://lawstudentaide.com/2018/12/05/right-to-life-constitutional-law/

Understanding the law is like a duty that every citizen is bound to perform. As Thomas Hobbes, rightly put it, "Ignorance of the law is no good excuse, where every man is bound to take notice of the laws to which he is subject." Law Student Aide is created primarily for law students and the average citizens who have interests in understanding the law.