BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Jerome v. Jerome
  • 700
  • 2013-10-28
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Jerome v. Jerome

FYNEBOY NYEUNETOR JEROME

V

  1. CHIEF CHIDI CHARLES JEROME
  2. AHOADA CUSTOMARY COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

( PORT HARCOURT DIVISION )

M. L. TSAMIYA JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )

EJEMBI EKO JCA

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH JCA

CA/PH/494/2009

THURSDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2013

APPEAL - Notice of appeal - Statutorily prescribed fees in Court of Appeal - Non-compliance with - Effect of - Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 , order 12, rule 1 and 3rd Schedule to the rules considered

APPEAL - Where incompetent - Court of Appeal - Power of to strike out - Court of Appeal Rules, Order 6, rule 6 considered

COURT - Competence of - Conditions precedent to - Defect in - Effect of

STATUTE - Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, Order 12, rule 1 and 3rd Schedule to the rules - Notice of appeal - Statutorily prescribed fees in Court of Appeal - Non-compliance with - Effect of

STATUTE - Court of Appeal Rules, Order 6, rule 6 - Appeal - Where incompetent - Court of Appeal - Power of to strike out

Issue:

Whether the learned trial judge (in the lower court) was not wrong to

uphold the jurisdiction of Ahoada Customary Court in suit No. ACC/ 56 /2007 as constituted.

Facts:

The 1st respondent filed an action against the appellant before the 2 nd respondent, the Ahoada Customary Court, claiming an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant from further act of trespass or laying claim to the one room at No. 65, Omoku Road, Ahoada Town which he forcefully entered, pending the determination of the substantive suit and order of court asking the respondent to vacate the disputed room pending the determination of the suit. The 1st respondent subsequently filed two motions, one ex parte and one on notice seeking same relief as stated above. The Customary Court granted the applications. Not satisfied, the appellant obtained leave of the lower court to apply for the judicial review of the two rulings. He then filed a motion seeking order of the lower court removing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent to the High Court with a view of quashing same and an order of certiorari to quash same. The lower court granted the application to quash the orders of injunction of the 2 nd respondent but remitted the main case to the 2nd respondent for continuation of trial. Not yet satisfied, the appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal contending that the lower court erred by holding that the 2 nd respondent had jurisdiction over the action.