IGBO PETER
( Representative of the Petitioners for
recall of plaintiff in Njikoka Constituency II)
V
ARCHITECT GEORGE IKE
OKOYE
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
EUGENE CHUKWUEMEKA UBAEZONU, JCA ( Presided )
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JCA
CA/E/148M/2000
THURSDAY, 5TH APRIL, 2001.
APPEAL - Fresh point on appeal - Raising of - Need to seek and obtain
leave of court - Effect of failure to so do
APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - Ground fused with particulars of error
Whether sufficient to render ground incompetent
COURT - Application for order of interlocutory injunction - Same
seeking to restrain specific constitutional function - Duty on trial court while
exercising discretion to grant same
COURT - Trial court - Issues canvassed therebefore - Failure of to pronounce thereon - Whether
Court of Appeal in position to pronounce on same
COURT - Trial courts - Duty on to pronounce on all issues canvassed before
it - Effect of failure to so do
ELECTORAL LAW - Legislative - Member of State House of Assembly Status
of as representative of his constituency
ELECTORAL LAW - Recall of legislator from State House of Assembly How
done
INJUNCTION - Applicant
for an order of interlocutory injunction - Where delayed in bringing his
application - Duty on to explain delay on his part
INJUNCTION - Application for order of interlocutory injunction - Same
seeking to restrain specific constitutional function - Duty on trial court
while exercising discretion to grant same
INJUNCTION - Application for order of interlocutory injunction
Consideration of image and ego of party while treating same Impropriety of
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Factors governing grant of Need
for court to consider conduct of parties - Delay as conduct likely to affect
grant of interlocutory injunction
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Whether can be made against
already completed act
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Whether can be made against
proposed constitutional event
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order incapable of being carried out - Need not
to make same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for order of interlocutory
injunction - Consideration of image and ego of party while treating same -
Impropriety of
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Balance of convenience - Perspective of the doctrine of - Duty
to grant an order where applicant will suffer more inconvenience than the
respondent if the order is refused PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Cases - Determination
of - How done
Issues:
1.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, whether the order of interlocutory injunction made by the learned trial
Judge was justified.
2.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in failing to
pronounce on issue canvassed before him.
Facts:
The appeal in
this suit emanated from a ruling delivered by the Federal High Court Enugu on
20/10/2000 on an application for interlocutory injunction brought by the
respondent as plaintiff.
In the ruling,
the High Court restrained the 1st defendant/respondent from taking any step
pursuant to recalling the plaintiff from membership of the Anambra State House
of Assembly. The 2nd defendant was also restrained from relying on the
allegations made in a petition written by Peter Igbo, the appellant against the
plaintiff to demand for recall. All the
orders were made pending the determination of the substantive suit.
In the
substantive suit the plaintiff/respondent claimed declaration that the
aforementioned petition raise serious criminal allegations against public
order. He also claimed a declaration
that the 1st defendant cannot rely on the allegation to take steps towards
recalling him.
The plaintiff
claimed further orders of injunction restraining the defendants and even
registered voters from either relying on the petition to recall him or from
recalling him at all. He finally claimed
an order setting aside the petition.
After arguments,
the order of interlocutory injunction was made as prayed and the appellant as
the 1st defendant at the lower court being aggrieved with the ruling has now
appealed against the ruling.
In determining the appeal, the Court of
Appeal considered the constitutionality of the orders made by the lower court
vis-a-vis the validity or otherwise of the whole process or attempts on the
recall of the 1st respondent from the House of Assembly.
The Honda Place Ltd v. Globe Motors Holdings Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 110
- Publication Date: 2002-07-08
THE
HONDA PLACE LIMITED
V
GLOBE
MOTORS HOLDINGS LIMITED
COURT OF
APPEAL
( LAGOS
DIVISION )
G. ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Ruling )
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JCA
CA/L/164/99
THURSDAY, 7TH JULY, 2001
ACTION - Res of an action - Need to preserve
COURT - Trial court - Duty on to protect the res in dispute
during pendency of an appeal
NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT - On wisdom in hierachichal system of
courts to check fallibility
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -Stay of proceedings - Purpose and
essence of with regard to preserving res of an action
Issue:
Whether the res of the appeal will not be destroyed if a stay of proceeding is
not granted.
Facts:
The applicant herein as the
defendant at the trial court raised a plea of estoppel per res judicata by a motion against the claim of the plaintiff.
The trial court overruled the objection. The applicant appealed to the Court of
Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the applicant
appealed to the Supreme Court. The applicant now brings this application for an
order staying further proceedings in the suit at the lower court pending the
determination of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
OTU URUNNE
V
PETER AGBORO
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
NIKI TOBI, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA
CA/B/214/98
THURSDAY, 10TH MAY, 2001
APPEAL - Appeal from Rent Tribunal - Need for to be with leave of High
Court
APPEAL - Brief of argument - Respondent’s brief - Features of - Need
for to deal only with issues arising from the appeal
APPEAL - Brief of argument - Respondent’s brief -Respondent adopting
issues formulated by appellant therein - Duty on to indicate that he is
adopting same
APPEAL - Conclusion and reason for allowing or dismissing an appeal
While stating same - Whether an opportunity to reargue the case or introduce
fresh arguments
APPEAL - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Attitude of
appellate court thereto - When appellate court will not interfere therewith
CONTRACT - Non est factum - Purport of - Whether available to the
appellant herein who, although, being an illiterate understood the content and
nature of transaction he made
COURT - Area Customary
Court - Whether competent to sit as a Rent Tribunal without changing its name -
Appeal from its decision to
High Court - Whether leave is required therefor
COURT - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Attitude of
appellate court thereto - When appellate court will not interfere therewith
COURT - Court process - Leave to commence same - Where required Effect
of failure to obtain same on court’s jurisdiction to entertain the process
COURT - Rent Tribunal - Appeal therefrom - Need for to be with leave of
High Court
COURT - Rules of court - Essence of - Obligation to adhere thereto
EVIDENCE - Credibility of witnesses - Proper court to assess - Whether
appellate court can recapture trial court’s vantage position to assess same
JUDICIARY - Trial Judge - counsel attacking same in briefs of argument
Impropriety of - Whether as person of dishonesty and insincerity on the part of
a Judge amounts to an insult
JURISDICTION - Jurisdiction of court - Whether court’s name has any
effect on its jurisdiction - Whether court vested with additional jurisdiction
outside its regular jurisdiction need to change its name before exercising same
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Rent Tribunal - Appeal therefrom - Need for to be
with leave of High Court
LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Counsel attacking a trial Judge in briefs of
argument - Impropriety of - Whether as person of dishonesty and insincerity on
the part of the Judge amounts to an insult
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Party wishing to go on appeal Duty on to adhere strictly to laid down
procedure - Effect of noncompliance
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Court process - Leave to commence same - Where
required - Effect of failure to obtain same on court’s jurisdiction to
entertain the process
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Rules of court - Essence of - Duty to comply
therewith
Issues:
1.
Whether or not the Warri Area Customary Court II sat as
a customary court or as a Rent control and Recovery of Residential Premises
Tribunal in respect of the suit the subject matter of this appeal.
2.
What is the nature of the transaction between the two
parties. Is it landlord and tenant matter, or loan or sale?
Facts:
The
plaintiff/respondent claimed against the defendant/appellant at the Area
Customary Court, Warri the recovery of
possession of his piece of land/premises situate at a village near Warri.
According to the plaintiff he acquired the said property from the defendant but
that he allowed the defendant to occupy the said premises pending when the
plaintiff would be ready to develop the said premises. The defendant refused,
failed and/or neglected to give up possession of the property despite his
repeated demands. The defendant on the other hand alleged that what took place
between him and the plaintiff was a loan, that he borrowed N17,000 from
plaintiff to be paid within 3 months and that he never sold this land and
building to plaintiff. Plaintiff tendered documents at the trial to
authenticate his evidence of sale such as the cash receipt and the sale
agreement between the parties amongst other documents.
At the end of the trial, the Area Customary
Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Dissatisfied with
the Area Court judgment, the defendant/appellant appealed to the High Court.
That court dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the defendant/appellant
appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Attorney-General, Ondo State vs. Attorny-General, Federation
- ₦ 200
- Part: 111
- Publication Date: 2002-07-15
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ONDO STATE
V
1.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF THE FEDERATION
2.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF ABIA STATE
3.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF ADAMAWA STATE
4.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF AKWA IBOM STATE
5.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF ANAMBRA STATE
6.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF BAUCHI STATE
7.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF BAYELSA STATE
8.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF BENUE STATE
9.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF BORNO STATE
10.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF CROSS RIVER STATE
11.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF DELTA STATE
12.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF EBONYI STATE
13.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF EDO STATE
14.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF EKITI STATE
15.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF ENUGU STATE
16. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF GOMBE STATE
17. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
IMO STATE
18.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF JIGAWA STATE
19.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KADUNA STATE
20.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KANO STATE
21.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KATSINA STATE
22.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KEBBI STATE
23.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KOGI STATE
24.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF KWARA STATE
25.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF LAGOS STATE
26.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF NASSARAWA STATE
27.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF NIGER STATE
28.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF OGUN STATE
29.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF ONDO STATE
30.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF OSUN STATE
31.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF OYO STATE
32.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF PLATEAU STATE
33.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF RIVERS STATE
34.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF SOKOTO STATE
35.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF TARABA STATE
36.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF YOBE STATE
37.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ZAMFARA STATE
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
M. LAWAL UWAIS, CJN ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JSC
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC
UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JSC
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC
SC.
200/2001
FRIDAY
7TH JUNE, 2002
ATTORNEY-GENERAL -
Attorney-General of the Federation -Powers conferred thereon by section
174, Constitution, 1999 - Whether court can control the manner in which can be
exercised - Whether can be prevented from exercising his functions on the
ground that his jurisdiction does not extend to any state in Nigeria
CASE LAW - Decisions
in Sele vs State and Emelogu vs. State - Relevance of to the legislative power
of the National Assembly to legislate on corrupt practices and abuse of power
in reliance on section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution, 1999 via item 60(a) of the
Exclusive Legislative List
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National
Assembly - Powers of to enact Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act,
2000- Reasons therefor
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ‘Implied Prohibition’ and ‘Mutual noninterference’
among National Government and component States Essence of - When applicable -
How applied
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ‘State’ in the context of section 15(5), 1999
Constitution - Whether means Federal Republic of Nigeria or Federal, State and
Local Governments
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - ‘State’ within section 15(5), 1999 Constitution
- Whether includes Federal and State
Governments
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Abolition of corrupt practices and abuse of power
- Legislation for establishment and regulation of authorities to promote and
enforce the observance of nation’s responsibility in respect thereof - Sole
power of National Assembly thereon
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Attorney-General of the Federation -Powers
conferred thereon by section 174, Constitution - Whether court can control the
manner in which can be exercised - Whether can be prevented from exercising his
functions on the grounds that his jurisdiction does not extend to any state in
Nigeria
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution - Powers, rights and limitations
created thereunder - Whether can be disputed in a court of law
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution, 1999 - Item 60(a) under Exclusive
Legislative List - Proper approach to interpretation thereof - Need to lean on
broader interpretation unless the text or the rest of the Constitution
indicates that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and
purposes of the Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution, 1999, section 13 thereof - Whether
limits application of provisions of Chapter II on Directive Principles to only
organs of government - Whether extend to
individual persons involved in corrupting official
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution, 1999, section 14(2)(b) and Item
60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List
- Variety of circumstances section 14(2)(b) can be legislated upon under item
60(a) - Instance of a state of emergency of national importance
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitution, 1999, section 15(5) thereof which
seeks for the abolition of corrupt practices and abuse of power Incorporation
thereof into the Exclusive Legislative List by item 60(a) - Need for liberal interpretation
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitutional Provisions - How construed Need to
adopt construction that will promote the general legislative purpose underlying
the constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitutional provisions - Interpretation of How
done - Need to construe same in such a way as to justify the hopes and
aspirations of the drafters
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Constitutional provisions which bear a measure of
ambiguity - Need to avoid technical rules of interpretation so as not to defeat
principles behind such provisions
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -
Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 - Sections 26(3) and 35
thereof - Whether constitutional, null and void
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act,
2000 - Section 37 thereof - Validity and constitutionality of
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Criminal law under 1979 Constitution -
Exclusion
thereof from the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative List - Competence of Houses of Assembly to legislate
thereon being a residual matter
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federal and State Governments - Concurrent power
of to legislate in order to prohibit corrupt practices and abuse of office
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federal or National Government - Act of Question
whether such encroaches on residual powers of a State What determines
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federal State and Component States - Separate and
independent autonomy of - Application of the doctrines of ‘implied prohibition’
and ‘mutual non-interference’
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federalism - Character thereof as a system of
Government
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federalism - Practice of as a system of government
in Nigeria - Historical background thereof
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Federalism - Universal feature of -
Consideration
of
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Federalism as a system of government in Nigeria
- Historical background of
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental Objective and Directive Principles of
State Policy - Duty of National Assembly to make law for the establishment and
regulation of authorities to promote and enforce
the
observance of - Authorities set up
thereby - Duty vested thereupon to promote and enforce the observance of the
Directive Principles
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of
State Policy - Fundamental usefulness of in the governance of a country
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Historical aetiology or origin of
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Need not to treat as a dead letter
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Place of on other jurisdictions
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Need to conform to and run subsidiary to the Chapter on
Fundamental Rights
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy under Chapter II of the Constitution, 1999 - Whether every section thereunder suitable for
legislation which would carry sanctions
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy under Chapter II of the Constitution, 1999
- Placing entire Chapter II under the Exclusive
Legislative List
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy under Chapter II of the Constitution, 1999 - Basis for placing same under Chapter II
declarations under Item 60(a) of the
Exclusive Legislative List
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Fundamental objectives and Direct Principles
contained in Chapter II of 1999 Constitution - Observance of - How can be enforced by the Independent
Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - How Independent Corrupt Practices and
Related
Offences Commission can promote and enforce same CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -
Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Duty of executive and legislature to give expression thereto
as occasion may demand
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - Justification for inclusion thereof within the Exclusive
Legislative List under Item 60(a)
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW - Fundamental Objectives and Directive
Principles
of State Policy - When legislative effect can be given thereto
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Legislation made in respect of subject-matter
which cuts across the states consisting a Federation - Whether an interference
with the affairs of such states
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Assembly - Legislative powers of in the
context of section 4(1) of the 1999 Constitution - Whether operated on behalf
of Federal Government or of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Assembly - Power of to legislate against
corruption and abuse of office
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Assembly - Power of to legislate for the
purpose of establishing and regulating Independent Corrupt Practices and
Related Offences Commission
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -
National Assembly - Power of to make laws for national emergency - Whether
would have been possible without the provision of section 11 of the 1999
Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - National Assembly - Power of to make laws for
national emergency, disaster or a state of war under section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution, 1999
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Residual power of a State - Whether encroached by
Act of Federal Government - What determines
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Residual powers of a state - Encroachment thereon
by Act of Federal or National Government - What determines
CORRUPT
PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Abolition of all corrupt practices and abuse of
power - Duty on Federal Government to make law through the National Assembly
for the purpose of
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Abolition of all corrupt
practices and abuse of power - Need and urgency for Nigerian Republic to show
its concern in relation thereto in line with section 15(5) , Constitution, 1999
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Abolition of corrupt practices
and abuse of power - Legislation for establishment and regulation of
authorities to promote and enforce the observance of nation’s responsibility in
respect thereof - Sole power of National Assembly thereon
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corruption and Abuse of Power -
How handled to save the interest and welfare of Nigeria
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER -
Constitution, 1999, section 13 thereof - Whether limits application of
provisions of Chapter II on Directive Principles to only organs of
government -
Whether extend to individual persons involved in corrupting official
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act - Criminal Proceedings in respect of any of the offences
created thereby - Who can lawfully initiate or authorise the initiation of
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act, 2000 - Sections 26(3) and 35 thereof - Whether unconstitutional, null and void
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act, 2000 - Section 37 thereof - Validity and
constitutionality of
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act No. 5 of 2000 - Aims, Purpose and Scope of
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act, 2000 - Whether unconstitutional
CORRUPT
PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Act - Applicability of to public
officers and private persons
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corruption and abuse of office
in Nigeria - Endemic nature and consequences of on development and progress
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Corruption and abuse of power -
Issue of - Whether will save the interests of all and the general welfare of
Nigeria to make same subject of national legislation - Russel vs. Queen,
Helvering vs. Davis, Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States considered
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Every individual person involved
in corrupt practices and abuse of power - Need for to be made to face the law
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Independent Corrupt Practices
and Related Offences Commission - Power of National Assembly to legislate for
the purpose of establishing same
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Independent Corrupt Practices
and Related Offences Commission - How can enforce the
Fundamental
Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Independent Corrupt Practices
Commission -Power of National Assembly
to establish same - Power to promote and enforce the observance of the purpose
of the Commission to be given by National Assembly
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ABUSE OF POWER - Prohibition of corrupt practices
and abuse of office - Concurrent power of Federal and State Governments to
legislate thereon
COURT - Attitude of to Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act
in view of court’s prior knowledge about the history of corruption in Nigeria
COURT
- Claim of plaintiff - Court not to go beyond
COURT - Exceptional
circumstances which call for exercise of legislative authority - When the court
is bound to take judicial notice thereof COURT -Extrinsic materials or evidence
on the scourge of corruption in
Nigeria furnished by an amicus curiae - Whether usable by the court
- Reference re Anti-Inflation Act (1976) 68 DLR
(Ed) 452 applied
COURT - Fundamental Objectives
and Directive Principles of State Policy -
Place of other jurisdiction
COURT - State High Court - Using same as venue for the prosecution of
cases initiated by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission - Whether unconstitutional
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Armed robbery - Whether a federal offence
in view of Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1970 which is a Federal Statute
CRIMINAL
LAW AND PROCEDURE - Criminal law under 1979
Constitution
- Exclusion thereof from the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative List -
Competence of Houses of Assembly to legislate thereon being a residual matter
CRIMINAL
LAW AND PROCEDURE - Decisions in Sele vs State and
Emelogu
vs. State - Relevance of to the legislative power of the National Assembly to
legislate on corrupt practices and abuse of power in reliance on section
14(2)(b) of the Constitution, 1999 via item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative
List
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - ‘Federal offence’ - Meaning of under
section 286(3), Constitution, 1999
EVIDENCE - Extrinsic materials or evidence on the scourge of corruption
in Nigeria furnished by an amicus curiae - Whether usable by the court -
Reference re Anti-Inflation Act (1976) 68 DLR (Ed) 452 applied
GOVERNMENT - ‘Implied Prohibition’ and ‘Mutual non-interference’ among
National Government and component States - Essence of When applicable - How
applied
GOVERNMENT - Federal
Government of Nigeria - Duty thereon to make law through the National Assembly
for the purpose of eradicating all corrupt practices and abuse of power
GOVERNMENT
- Federal or National Government - Act of - Question whether such encroaches on
residual powers of a State - What determines
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Broader and narrower interpretation of the
provisions of Constitution - When may be resorted to - Need to consider the
context and scheme of the Constitution
INTERPRETATION OF STATUES - Constitution, 1999, section 15(5) thereof
which seeks for the abolition of corrupt practices and abuse of power - Incorporation thereof into the Exclusive
Legislative List by item
60(a) - Need for liberal interpretation
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE -
Constitution, 1999 - Section 15(5) thereof ‘State’ in the context thereof - Meaning of
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Constitution, 1999 - Exclusive Legislative
List - Item 60(a) thereunder - Proper approach to interpretation of
INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTE - Constitution, 1999 - Item 60(a) under Exclusive Legislative List -
Proper approach to interpretation thereof -
Need to lean on broader interpretation unless the text or the rest of
the Constitution indicates that the narrower interpretation will best carry out
the objects and purposes of the Constitution
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Constitution, 1999, section 15(5) thereof -
Canon of interpretation given thereto
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Constitutional provisions - Need to avoid
narrow interpretation - Danger of narrow construction
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Constitutional provisions which bear a
measure of ambiguity - Need to avoid technical rules of interpretation so as
not to defeat principles behind such provisions
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
Doctrine of implied prohibition Inapplicability of where ordinary
principle of construction are applied
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - ‘State’ within section 15(5) , 1999 Constitution - Whether includes Federal
and State Governments
JUDICIAL
NOTICE - Exceptional circumstances which call for exercise of legislative
authority - When the court is bound to take judicial notice thereof
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - Decisions in Sele vs State and Emelogu vs. State -
Relevance of to the legislative power of the National Assembly to legislate on
corrupt practices and abuse of power in reliance on section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution, 1999 via item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List
LEGISLATION - Legislation made in respect of subject-matter which cuts
across the states consisting a Federation - Whether an interference with the
affairs of such states
LEGISLATURE - Abolition of corrupt practices and abuse of power
Legislation for establishment and regulation of authorities to promote and
enforce the observance of nation’s responsibility in respect thereof - Sole
power of National Assembly thereon
LEGISLATURE - Criminal law under 1979 Constitution - Exclusion thereof
from the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative List - Competence of Houses of
Assembly to legislate thereon being a residual matter
LEGISLATURE - Decisions in Sele vs State and Emelogu vs. State
Relevance of to the legislative power of the National Assembly to legislate on
corrupt practices and abuse of power in reliance on section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution, 1999 via item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List
LEGISLATURE - Federal Legislature and the State legislatures -
Legislative powers of each legislature -
How divided
LEGISLATURE - Legislation made in respect of subject-matter which cuts
across the states consisting a Federation - Whether an interference with the
affairs of such states
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly
- Act enacted thereby - Whether need state constitutional provisions under
which it is enacted
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Competence of to create offences
bordering on corrupt practices and abuse of power - Whether affected or impeded
by the decisions in Sele vs. State and Emelogu vs. State
LEGISLATURE
- National Assembly - Legislative powers of in the context of section 4(1) of
the 1999 Constitution - Whether operated on behalf of Federal Government or of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Power of to legislate against
corruption and abuse of office
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Power of to legislate for the purpose
of establishing and regulating Independent Corrupt Practices and Related
Offences Commission
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Power of to make laws for national
emergency, disaster or a state of war under section 14(2)(b) of the
Constitution, 1999
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Power of vis-a-vis matters directly
within its legislative powers and those not directly within its legislative
powers
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Power of where an enactment is in
relation to a matter within the enumerated classes of subjects expressly
assigned thereto
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Powers of to enact Corrupt Practices
and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 - Whether validly exercised
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Whether has Constitutional power to
create criminal offences under Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Act, 2000 - Relevancy of provisions of items 67 and 68 Part I of the second schedule
to 1999 Constitution
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly - Whether has legislative competence to
enact Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000
LEGISLATURE - National Assembly -Power of under section 4 and item
60(a) , Exclusive Legislative List, 1999 Constitution to make all laws directed
to the end of those powers and reasonably incidental to their absolute
fulfilment
NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT - Corruption and Abuse of Power - How handled to
save the interest and welfare of Nigeria
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Claim of plaintiff - Court not to go beyond STATUTE -
Constitution, 1999, section 15(5) thereof which seeks for the abolition of
corrupt practices and abuse of power - Incorporation of into the Exclusive
Legislative List by item 60(a) - Need for liberal interpretation
STATUTE - Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act - Criminal
Proceedings in respect of any of the offences created thereby - Who can
lawfully initiate or authorise the initiation of
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences - Provisions of
sections 6(a), 26(3), 28, 29, 35 and 37 thereof - Whether unconstitutional and
invalid
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act Applicability of to public officers and
private persons
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act - Whether
unconstitutional
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act No. 5 of
2000 - Aims, Purpose and Scope of
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 Enactment
of - Whether National Assembly has legislative competence therefor
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 Criminal offences thereunder - Whether
National Assembly has constitutional power to create - Relevancy of provisions
of items 67 and 68 of Part I of the second schedule to 1999 Constitution
STATUTE - Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 Attitude of court thereto in view of courtâ€
Attorney-General, Anambra State v. Okeke
- ₦ 200
- Part: 112
- Publication Date: 2002-07-22
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ANAMBRA STATE
JOHN IKE NWOKOLO
DR. MICHAEL IFEORAH
ANTHONY ANAEKE
PATRICK OBIAKOR
CHIEF AUGUSTINE EZENWA
( Chairman Abagana Constitutional Review
Committee )
V
EPHRAIM OKEKE
CHIEF AJULUCHUKWU
UCHEAGBOSO
NWAFOR OKEKE
ORAGWU UNCHA AKUECHIE
SAMUEL UDENWA
( For themselves and
all other members of Akpu Abagana Village Community, Abagana)
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
SYLVESTGER UMARU ONU, JSC ( Presided ) ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JSC
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SC.102/1997
MONDAY,
27TH MAY, 2002
APPEAL - Appellate court - Person not a party to proceedings - Whether
appellate court will exercise jurisdiction thereon
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Committal order made thereby after
overruling preliminary objection sustained by the trial court without hearing
parties on merit on the committal application - Impropriety of
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Extent of jurisdiction of under section 16
of
Court of Appeal Act
APPEAL - Court of
Appeal - General proposition that Court of Appeal can after striking out a
matter for being improperly brought proceed to determine the matter on its
merit - Whether Okotie-Eboh’s case is in support of such approach
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Powers of pursuant to section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act - Whether includes what the trial court could not have done
APPEAL - Grounds of appeal and issues for determination - Need to
relate to relevant decisions of court from which appeal lies - Effect of
failure to relate thereto
APPEAL - Judgment of trial court - Party not directly or indirectly
affected thereby - Appeal filed by same in respect of - Effect
APPEAL - Notice of Appeal - Party wrongly named in an appeal - Whether
necessary to be served with notice
APPEAL - Parties to an appeal - Whether properly named as parties What
determines
APPEAL - Subsisting order of trial court - Party discharged from proceedings
therefrom - Appeal filed against same - Impropriety of
APPEAL - Supreme court - Improper party in the Court of Appeal - When
can appeal thereto
CONTEMPT - Form 48 - Actual date of service of - Importance of
CONTEMPT - Judgment debtor - Committal of to prison - Condition
precedent thereto - Order IX Rule 13 Judgment (Enforcement) Rules Cap 118 laws
of Eastern Nigeria
COURT - Appellate court - Person not a party to proceedings - When the
appellate court will exercise jurisdiction thereon
COURT - Court of Appeal - Committal order made thereby after overruling
preliminary objection sustained by the trial court without hearing parties on
merit on the committal application - Impropriety of
COURT - Court of Appeal - Extent of jurisdiction of under section 16 of
Court of Appeal Act
COURT - Court of Appeal - General proposition that same can after
striking out a matter for being improperly brought proceed to determine the
matter on its merit - Whether Okotie-Eboh’s case is in support of
COURT - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction thereof to determine committal
application on merit - Whether the Okotie Eboh’s case is authority for
COURT - Court of Appeal - Power of pursuant to section 16 of the Court
of Appeal Act - Whether includes what the trial court could not have done
COURT - Interlocutory matters - Pronouncement which would prejudice
fair hearing of substantive suit - Need for court to refrain from making while
dealing with interlocutory matters
COURT - Judgment of trial court - Party not directly or indirectly
affected thereby - Appeal filed by same in respect of - Effect
COURT - Jurisdiction of court - Whether confers by acquiescence of
party when court is incompetent
COURT - Proceedings of court - Records and their contents - Whether the
court will take judicial notice of
COURT - Process of court - Proof of service afforded by court’s record
in the proceeding - Whether the court can ignore
COURT - Supreme court - Improper party in the Court of Appeal - When
can appeal thereto
COURT - Trial court - Subsisting order of - Party discharged from
proceedings therefrom - Appeal filed against - Impropriety of
EVIDENCE - Affidavit - Affidavit of service - Purpose of
EVIDENCE - Affidavit - Affidavit evidence - Where not denied by
respondent - Effect
EVIDENCE - Proof of Service - Certificate of
service in terms of Order 7 rule 16 of the High Court Rules of Anambra State -
Whether exclusive means thereof
EVIDENCE - Proof of service - Proof of service afforded by court’s
record in the proceeding - Whether the court can ignore
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment debtor - Committal of to prison
Condition precedent thereto - Order IX Rule 13 Judgment ( Enforcement) Rules
Cap 118 laws of Eastern Nigeria
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Subsisting order of trial court - Party
discharged from proceedings therefrom - Appeal filed against Impropriety of
JURISDICTION - Acquiescence of parties - Whether confers jurisdiction
on court when incompetent
JURISDICTION - Appellate court - Person not a party to proceedings When
the appellate court will exercise jurisdiction thereon
JURISDICTION - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction thereof to determine
committal application on merit - Whether the case of Okotie Eboh is authority
for
PARTIES - Improper party in the Court of Appeal - When can appeal to the Supreme Court
PARTIES - Parties to an appeal - Whether properly named - What
determines
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Affidavit - Affidavit of service - Purpose of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Form 48 - Actual date of service of Importance
of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory matters - Pronouncement which
would prejudice fair hearing of substantive suit - Need for court to refrain
from making same while dealing with interlocutory matters
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment debtor - Committal of to prison -
Condition precedent thereto - Order IX Rule 13
Judgment ( Enforcement) Rules Cap 118 laws of Eastern Nigeria
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Proceedings of court - Records and their
contents - Whether the court will take judicial notice of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Process of court - Form 49 - When the
Registrar may issue
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Service of process of court - Proof of Service
- Certificate of service in terms of order 7 rule 16 of the High Court Rules of
Anambra State - Whether exclusive means to prove service
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Service of process of court - Proof of service
afforded by court’s record in the proceedings - Whether the court can ignore
same
STATUTE - Section 16, Court of Appeal Act - Extent of jurisdiction of
Court of Appeal thereunder
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Affidavit of service of a court process’ - Meaning
of
Issues:
1.
Should an order of committal have been made against the
appellants who were not parties to the committal proceedings?
2.
Whether the appeal of 2nd and 5th appellants is
competent not being proper parties to the appeal in the court below
3.
Whether the Court of Appeal (taken as the trial court
pursuant to section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976) lacked the
jurisdiction ab initio to convict and
sentence any party for contempt without first disposing of the issue of
jurisdiction raised in the substantive suit.
Facts:
The plaintiffs
herein on 16th December 1993 filed an application for committal of the
appellants for their disobedience of the order of interim injunction delivered
in the plaintiff’s favour against them. On 20th December 1993 . The names of
the 2nd and 5th appellants were struck out by the court on application by the
plaintiff’s counsel for being unable to effect service on them. The appellants
subsequently filed notice of preliminary objection to the committal application
on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of Order 1 rule 14 of
Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.
The trial court sustained the
objection and struck out the application for committal. The respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that there was compliance
with Order 9 rule 13(2) of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. The Court of
Appeal, exercising its power under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act which
provides inter alia thus; “the Court
of Appeal generally shall have full jurisdiction over the proceedings as if the
proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as court of first
instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the
court below for the purpose of such re-hearing,†purportedly re-heard the
appeal on records and ordered committal of the 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
respondents. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
J. S. ESURUOSO
A. ADIGUN
M. AGBABIAKA
OMO OBA FELA ONAFUWA
( Registered -trustees Of Ogun State Traditional Healers Association)
CHIEF MUSTAPHA ODEJAYI
( A.K.A. GBEBOLAJA )
V
ALHAJI AFOLABI AMBALI OGIDI
COURT OF APPEAL
( IBADAN DIVISION )
MORENIKEJI OMOTAYO ONALAJA, JCA ( Presided )
DALHATU ADAMU, JCA (
Read the Lead Judgment )
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI
CA/I/124/95
THURSDAY, 21ST
FEBRUARY, 2002
ACTION
- Locus standi - Meaning and nature of - Importance of - Duty of court to give
priority of consideration and determination to when raised
ACTION - Locus standi -
How determined
ACTION - Locus standi -
Plaintiff lacking - Effect thereof
APPEAL
- Decision of trial court - When Court of Appeal will interfere therewith
APPEAL
- Issues for determination - Issue framed by appellant - Whether respondent can
frame different issue therefrom in the absence of a cross-appeal - When he
cannot
APPEAL
- Judgment of trial court - When perverse - Proper approach of appellate Court
of Appeal thereto
APPEAL
- Preliminary objection - Respondent raising same to an appeal Duty of to give
appellant three clear days notice - Effect of failure to so do - Order 3 rule
15(1) Court of Appeal Rules 1981
CHIEFTAINCY
MATTERS - Title of Basegun of Ijebu-Igbo - Whether a ‘recognised’ or ‘minor’
chieftaincy title within the prescribed authority of Oba of Ijebu Igbo under
the Chiefs Law of Ogun State
COURT
- Decision of trial court - When Court of Appeal will interfere therewith
COURT
- Judgment of trial court - When perverse - Proper approach of appellate court
thereto
COURT - Judicial powers
of court - Duty on plaintiff invoking same
EVIDENCE - Proof - Onus
of proof - On whom lies
JUDGMENT
AND ORDERS - Judgment of trial court - When perverse proper approach of
appellate court thereto
LOCUS STANDI -
Determination of by court - How done
LOCUS STANDI - Meaning
and importance of
LOCUS STANDI -
Plaintiff lacking locus standi - Effect
PLEADINGS - Bindingness
of
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Judicial powers of court - Duty on plaintiff invoking same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
- Pleadings - Bindingness of
WORDS AND PHRASES -
‘Locus standi’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether a respondent can still raise an issue not
raised by the appellant or the grounds of which has been abandoned by the
said appellant.
2.
Whether the 1st - 4th appellants as trustees of the
Ogun State Traditional Healers Association have locus standi to institute the action.
3.
Whether the title of “Basegun†(Head of Traditional
Healers) can be regarded as a minor chief under the Chiefs Law of Ogun State,
1978, over which the first defendant is the prescribed authority.
Facts:
The dispute that
led to the suit in the present case arose after the 1st defendant, Oba Adetayo
Sani Kupa Kude IV, (who is now deceased) as the traditional ruler of Ijebu-Igbo
appointed and installed the 2nd defendant (the respondent herein) as the Basegun of Ijebu-Igbo (i.e. the head of
traditional healers). Before the
appointment and installation there was a tussle of leadership amongst members
of the Ijebu-Igbo branch of Traditional Healers Association of Ogun State which
tussle led to divisions and factions amongst the said members of the
association. The deceased traditional
ruler then acted by appointing the respondent his own candidate which
appointment instead of bringing an end to the tussle led to the present suit by
other members of the association as its registered trustees who wanted the -5th
appellant to be installed as the BASEGUN of Ijebu-Igbo.
At the conclusion of hearing the trial
court dismissed all the claims of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved the plaintiff
appealed to the Court of Appeal, which court considered the locus standi of the plaintiffs to
institute this action at the trial court as raised by the preliminary objection
in the respondent’s brief.
Eternal Trust Savings & Loans Ltd v. Beauty Fair Lab. Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 112
- Publication Date: 2002-07-22
ETERNAL TRUST SAVINGS & LOANS LTD.
CHIEF ADEWALE ATANDA
V
BEAUTY FAIR LABORATORY
LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( LAGOS DIVISION )
G. ADESOLA OGUNTADE,
JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JCA
CA/L/1/97
TUESDAY, 19TH JUNE, 2001
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Order 10 rule 3
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1972 - Interpretation of -
Guiding principles therefor - Whether defence could be disclosed by means other
than affidavit as required under the rule
PLEADINGS - Allegation of fraud therein -
Need to state all necessary particulars and full allegations thereof
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Order 10 rule 3
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1972 - Interpretation of -
Guiding principles therefor - Whether defence could be disclosed by means other
than affidavit as required under the rule
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Order 10 rule 3
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1972 - Granting of leave to
defend thereunder - Determination of - Guiding principles - Need for interest
of justice to override technicalities
Issue:
Whether the
defendants/appellants disclosed sufficient triable issues as to be entitled to
leave to defend the action on the merit
[2002] F.W.L.R. Eternal
Trust Savings & Loans Ltd. vs. Beauty Fair Lab. Ltd. 135
Facts:
The respondent herein as
plaintiff in the lower court issued a specially endorsed writ of summons
accompanied by a statement of claim pursuant to Order 3 rules 4 and 5 of the
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1972 claiming against the
appellants as defendants liquidated sum of N1,000.000.00 (One million Naira)
and the accrued interest.
The appellants filed a statement
of defence which incorporated a counter-claim by the 1st appellant. The
respondent later filed summons for judgment for the amount claimed on the writ.
It deposed inter-alia in the
affidavit in support of the summons for judgment that the appellants jointly
had no defence to the action. The appellants also filed a counter-affidavit to
the respondent’s summons for judgment.
At the conclusion of arguments on
the summons for judgment, the learned trial Judge gave judgment to the
respondent as claimed.
The 1st
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment appealed to the court of appeal.
EMOS KWADA
V
YAKUBU ZIRA
DAUDA ZIRA
YOHANNA ZIRA
PETER ZIRA
JOHN ZIRA
GARBA BUBA
YOHANNA NDA
TERI TERI
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JCA ( Presided )
OLUDADE OLADAPO OBADINA, JCA
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/J/92/94
TUESDAY,
19TH FEBRUARY, 2002
APPEAL - Grounds of
appeal - Issues not raised before trial court - Whether can be entertained by
appellate court
APPEAL - Grounds of
appeal - Need for ground to be based on decision challenged
APPEAL - Jurisdiction
of Court of Appeal vis-a-vis decision of Area Court - Extent of
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS -
Basis for judgment - Consideration of material facts pleaded and proved at the
trial
JURISDICTION - Jurisdiction of court - Jurisdiction not conferred by law - Whether can be assumed
LAND LAW - Possession - Claim for - How to
defeat same
LAND LAW - Ownership of land - Five ways of
proving same
LAND LAW - Trespass -
What plaintiff must prove to succeed in an action therefor
Issues:
1.
Whether the proceedings of the trial Upper Area Court
as confirmed by High Court Michika does not offend against the appellant’s fair
hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2.
Whether, having regard to the state of facts available
before the court the appellate High Court was right to have concluded that the
land subject of dispute is a family land under Wuro Ngayadi culture.
3.
Whether respondents were entitled to judgment.
Facts:
The appellant
herein, as plaintiff, filed an action at Upper Area Court, Michika against the
respondents herein, as defendants, claiming declaration of title, trespass and
injunction in respect of the land lying at Wuro Nayadi, Madagali Local
Government, Adamawa State.
The plaintiff at
the Upper Area Court claimed to have purchased the land in dispute from Iliya
as evidenced by a purchase receipt and alienation certificate. The said sale was in fact witnessed by the
village head, Lawan while the defendants asserted that Iliya who sold the land
to the plaintiff is a member of their extended family having the same
grandfather with them. It was further asserted that Iliya had no authority to
sell the land when the family members were not consulted. When the defendants sued Iliya afer the
discovery of the sale, he confessed that he made a mistake.
The trial Upper
Area Court Judge held that the sale was void.
The plaintiff being displeased with the said decision filed an appeal at
the High Court of Adamawa State. The
learned appellate Judges of the High Court held that if the land did not belong
to Iliya, he passes no title to the plaintiff/ appellant. The appellate High Court Judges stated
further that the root of title vested on members of the family not Iliya who
under native law and custom of Wuro Ngayadi cannot pass any such legal
title. The appeal was therefore
dismissed.
The plaintiff/appellant being dissatisfied
with the decision of the Appellate High Court Judges brought this appeal.
Tsokwa Oil & Marketing Co. Nig. Ltd v. Bank of the North Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 112
- Publication Date: 2002-07-22
TSOKWA OIL MARKETING CO. NIG. LIMITED
V
BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Presided )
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC (
Read the Lead Judgment )
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC
SC.58/1997
FRIDAY, 17TH MAY, 2002
APPEAL - Filing of initial appeal and amended appeal - Differences in
provisions of governing enactments: Court of Appeal Act viz-a-viz Court of
Appeal Rules - Differences in consequences of non compliance therewith
APPEAL - Findings on evidence by trial court - When appellate court
will interfere with
APPEAL - Non-compliance with governing principles - Effect -
Differences between mere irregularity and fundamental non-compliance - Court of
Appeal Act and Court of Appeal Rules considered
APPEAL - Preliminary objection on appeal - Filing of - Whether
forecloses erring party from correcting errors complained of
CONTRACT - Breach of contract - Onus on plaintiff to prove that
defendant responsible for breach
CONTRACT - Condition precedent - Effect of on the formation and
bindingnss of a contract
CONTRACT - Conditional contract - Phrase ‘subject to’ therein -
Interpretation of
CONTRACT - Conditions in a contract - Types of conditions
CONTRACT - Consensus ad idem - Pre-requisite for a valid contract
CONTRACT - Discharge of - Ways in which a contract can be discharged
CONTRACT - Valid contract - Definite offer and definite acceptance as a
pre-requisite of
COURT - Findings on evidence by trial court - When appellate court will
interfere with
DAMAGES - Claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract - Onus
on plaintiff to prove that defendant is responsible for breach before he can be
made liable for losses arising therefrom
DAMAGES - Unliquidated damages - Duty of court to indicate its
assessment on claims for damages even if it finds against claimant
EVIDENCE - Admissions - Admission by a person who has no knowledge of
admitted facts - Effect of
EVIDENCE - Admissions - Witness testifying that he is not aware of
existence of facts - Whether constitutes an admission
EVIDENCE - Proof of facts adduced - Onus on he who asserts to prove
Exception to
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Preliminary objection - Filing of Whether
forecloses erring party from correcting error complained of
STATUTE - Court of Appeal Act vis-a-vis Court of Appeal Rules -
Noncompliance therewith - Differences in effect
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Subject to’ in a contractual clause - Meaning and
effect of
Issues:
1.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in striking out
the appellant’s preliminary objection before it.
2.
Whether the defendant was right in cancelling the
Performance Bond it was to grant in favour of the appellant.
3.
Whether the appellant established its case before the
trial court so as to entitle it to the award of N4,707,752.80 as damages for
breach of contract.
Facts:
The appellant was at all material
times to this action a customer of the respondent at the latter’s Rafia kada
branch, Taraba State. The appellant applied to the respondent for a performance
bond in the sum of N300,000 ( Three Hundred Thousand Naira). The respondent
accepted to issue the bond subject to four conditions contained in its letter
of 30th October, 1989, which was tendered as exhibit 75 at the trial court. The
appellant fulfilled only two of the conditions hence the bond was not released
to him without reference to the other conditions, it applied for an increase in
the value of the performance bond. The respondent by a letter 1st July, 1981
cancelled the earlier bond approved and informed the appellant that it would
work towards meeting its new demands.
The appellant subsequently filed
an action for damages for breach of contract at the Taraba State High Court
claiming that having fulfilled all the conditions contained in exhibit 75, the
respondent breached the contract reached thereby by cancelling the approved
bond. At the trial, despite assertions by the respondent that the appellant did
not fulfil all the conditions in exhibit 75, the appellant on whom the onus
lied to prove compliance failed to adduce any evidence in proof of same. The
trial court nevertheless found for the appellant and granted all reliefs sought
by it. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the respondent initially filed eight
grounds of appeal and was subsequently granted leave to file two other grounds.
There was no time limit for the filing of the additional grounds. The
respondent neglected to file the additional grounds of appeal but nevertheless
went ahead to argue same in the brief filed. The appellant (respondent therein)
discovered this error and filed a preliminary objection on receipt of which the
respondent ( appellant therein) filed the additional grounds of appeal and with
leave filed an amended appellant’s brief. The appellant also amended his brief
of argument.
However, in
its brief of argument, the appellant formulated an issue for determination
based on the preliminary objection filed. The Court of Appeal at the conclusion
of hearing set aside the trial court’s judgment. Dissatisfied the appellant
appealed to the Supreme Court.
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC.
V
MODE NIGERIA LIMITED
OBIAJULU ONOCHIE
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
EUGENE C. UBAEZONU, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI,
JCA
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JCA
CA/E/105/99
THURSDAY,
5TH APRIL, 2001
APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - Issue for
determination - Formulation of in respect of each ground of appeal -
Undesirability of
APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - Issues for
determination being more than the grounds - Impropriety of
APPEAL - Misdirection or error in law -
Allegation of - Duty on the appellant to state particulars and nature of
APPEAL - Notice and grounds of appeal -
Whether proper to strike out because issues exceed the grounds - How
overlapping issues should be treated
FAIR HEARING - Litigants - Hearing of - Need
for - Failure to so do Effect
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - ‘Preliminary objection’ - Meaning of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Grounds of appeal -
Issue for determination - Formulation of in respect of each grounds of appeal
- Undesirability of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Grounds of appeal -
Issues for determination being more than the grounds - Impropriety of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Misdirection or
error in law - Allegation of - Duty on the appellant to state particulars and
nature of
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Order 9, rule 4 of High Court of Anambra
State
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1988 - Intendment of
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure - Aim of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List
Procedure - Triable issue therein - When raised
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Preliminary objection’ - Meaning of
Issue:
Whether the affidavit in support of notice of intention to
defend set out facts sufficient to raise a prima
facie defence to the monetary claim by the 1st respondent to warrant an
order transferring the case to the general cause list.
Facts:
The 1st
respondent herein maintained an account with the appellant’s bank at the Idowu
Taylor, Victoria Island branch of the appellant. Despite letters by the respondents to the
appellant advising the appellant not to honour cheques drawn on its account in
view of change of signatories to the said account, the appellant continued to
allow the account to be operated. Huge sums of money were thus withdrawn from
the said account. It is the contention of the respondents that the cumulative
sums of money, lodged into the account by the respondents and their clients and
customers from the period the appellant was duly notified of the change of the
signatory to 4 /2/99 the balance in the account should be N45,166,493.03. What was however left in the account as at
4/2/99 was N8,196.53.
It is the
failure of the appellant to credit the respondent’s account with the various
amounts of money withdrawn from the account that made the respondents to file a
suit under the Undefended List Procedure in the High Court of Enugu State
claiming the sum of N45,166,493.03 being the respondents’ balance in their
account with the appellant. The learned
trial Chief Judge gave his ruling dismissing the appellant’s application to
defend the suit and immediately proceeded to enter judgment against the
appellant in accordance with the claim.
Dissatisfied
with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court
of Appeal. During the hearing of the appeal, the
respondents gave two notices of preliminary objection which primarily
challenged the competence of the notice and grounds of appeal. After hearing of arguments of counsel on the
preliminary objections the Court of Appeal overruled them.
West African Breweries Ltd v. Savannah Ventures Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 112
- Publication Date: 2002-07-22
FRANCIS EZEDIUFU
V
THE STATE
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
J. THOMPSON AKPABIO,
JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment
)
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JCA
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JCA
CA/E/215/98
THURSDAY,
26TH APRIL, 2001
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Arraignment - Valid and proper arrangement
- Conditions therefor - What amounts to most import requirement of
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Arraignment -
Meaning of
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Charge - How
same should be read and explained to an accused under the provisions of section
215 CPA - Whether language used
relevance
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Defence of
insanity - Burden of proving same when raised - On whom lies
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Defence of
insecurity - When to raise same
EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence -
Evaluation of - Need to ensure that there are no other co-existing
circumstances that can weaken or destroy the inference drawn therefrom
EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Presumption of guilt based thereon
-
Onus on the accused to rebut same
EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Purport
of - Nature of required to convict an accused for murder
EVIDENCE - Proof - Proof beyond reasonable
doubt - Application of Need to employ same only in deserving cases - Section
138(1) Evidence Act
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Arraignment’ - Meaning
of
Issues:
1.
Whether from the printed record there was proper
arraignment of the appellant before the trial court as required under section
215 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
2.
Whether from the record, the learned trial Judge placed
the burden of proof on accused to prove his innocence.
3.
Whether on the totality of the evidence adduced at the
trial, the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
Facts:
The appellant was charged before
the High Court of Anambra State for murder contrary to section 319 of the
Criminal Code and was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
The facts of the case as
narrated by PW3 were that on the day of the incident, PW4 had a chat with the
deceased and after the deceased had gone to her house, she heard a wailing cry
from the deceased’s house. The distracting voice of the deceased was saying
that “Ezediufu has killed me†referring to the appellant. PW4 then rushed to
the house of the deceased who was the mother of the accused and there saw the
accused standing in front of his mother’s room with the door locked. The
accused told PW4 that the deceased had travelled to a neighbouring village when
she sought to see the deceased. Having observed no trace of the deceased the
next morning, she went back to the deceased’s house and then demanded for the
key of the door of the deceased’s room from the accused but the accused refused
to give it to her. The accused there and then informed PW4 that the deceased
had travelled to Onitsha when PW4 required again about her whereabouts. The
accused was later seen washing the deceased’s bed. When he was queried for his
action, accused said that the deceased’s bed was infested with bed bugs. PW4
then reported the unsatisfactory behaviour of the accused to PW1. In addition
an emissary was dispatched to Onitsha to find out from deceased’s daughter
whether the deceased actually travelled to Onitsha. The deceased’s daughter
denied that her mother visited Onitsha at that time. The matter was reported to
the police who after forcing the door of the deceased’s room open observed
blood spots on the walls and also on some items found in the room. Also
recovered in the room were two blood-stained matchets, one head tie and one bed
sheet under a bed in the room which were also bloodstained. Appellant’s
blood-stained knickers were also found in the room.. Also found in the premises
of the deceased’s house was a grave which later turned out to be where the
deceased was hurriedly buried.
Post mortem examination
performed on the exhumed body revealed deep laceration on the right side of the
neck and the cause of death was attributed to bleeding.
Although the appellant denied complicity in the brutal killing
of his mother and controverted every allegation implicating him, he was
convicted by the Judge and sentenced to death by hanging. Being dissatisfied
with the conviction and sentence, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
JOHN AKINWOYE
BAMIGBOYE
ADEOYE GABRIEL
ADEFILA RAIMI
CHIEF ABIODUN ELEMIKAN
V
CHIEF JAMES ADEKOLA
AWOYINKA
EZEKIEL AWOYINKA
( For themselves and on behalf of Igbo-Ogun
family of Otun-Ekiti)
COURT OF APPEAL
( ILORIN DIVISION )
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )
PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, JCA
( Read the Lead Ruling )
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN,
JCA
CA/IL/82/99
TUESDAY,
26TH MARCH, 2002
ACTION
- Party in a case - Who is
APPEAL - Constitutional right of appeal -
Free exercise of by parties Whether can be hindered by court
APPEAL - Issues not raised at the lower
court - Power of appellate court to grant leave to argue same on appeal
APPEAL - Leave to raise entirely new case on
appeal - Rationale for refusing same
EVIDENCE
- Affidavit evidence - Uncontroverted affidavit - Effect of
LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Counsel swearing to an
affidavit - Need to avoid so doing
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘A party’ - Who is
Issues:
1.
Whether there is still a competent appeal pending
before this court in view of the death of two defendants in the lower court.
2.
Considering the jurisdiction vested in this court by
section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1991,
whether this court can entertain fresh issues as prayed for in the appellant’s
motion dated 4th May, 2001.
Facts:
Judgment was
given in favour of the respondents as plaintiffs against the appellants as
defendants in the lower court. Dissatisfied with the judgment the 2nd to 5th
defendants now the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment and
decisions contained therein. The appellants brought motion on notice dated
15/03/2001 to amend their notice and grounds of appeal. Also for an extension
of time within which to file their brief of argument. The respondents opposed
the application on the ground that some of the grounds which the applicants are
seeking to file raised fresh issues which were not canvassed in the lower
court. Further, that the applicants did not seek leave to raise the issues and
consequently, no leave has been granted. As a result of this objection by the
respondents, the applicants as a precautionary measure on 4/05/2001 applied for
leave to raise the issues covered by the said grounds of appeal. The
application notwithstanding, the respondents on 7/05/2001 applied for the
appeal to be struck out on the ground that “the major parties in the case are
dead.â€
The ruling is sequel to the above
three applications made by the learned counsel for the parties which motions
were consolidated.
MOHAMMED FALADU
V
MALAM HUDU MAI KWOI
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JCA ( Presided )
OLUDADE OLADAPO OBADINA, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA
CA/J/82/95
WEDNESDAY,
23RD JANUARY, 2002
COURT - Hearing notice - Whether a condition
precedent to exercise of jurisdiction of court - Effect of failure to notify a
party entitled to be heard on proceedings, judgment and orders of court
COURT - Process of court - Service thereof -
Condition precedent to the hearing of any suit
JURISDICTION - Hearing notice - Whether a
condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction of court - Effect of failure to
notify a party entitled to be heard on proceedings, judgment and orders of
court
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Date for mention -
Treating same as a date for hearing - Impropriety of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Hearing notice -
Requirement of service of - Failure to serve - Effect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Hearing notice -
Whether a condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction of court - Effect of
failure to notify a party entitled to be heard on proceedings, judgment and
orders of court
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Where defendant fails to file
-
Whether entitles to hearing
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Process of court -
Service thereof Condition precedent to the hearing of any suit
Issues:
1.
Whether the trial Judge has jurisdiction to have
entered judgment for the respondent when there was no evidence that the
appellant was served with a hearing notice.
2.
Whether the trial Judge was right to have entertained
the matter on a date that was supposed to be for mentionâ€. and
3.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in giving
judgment to the plaintiff as he did.
Facts:
The respondent herein filed his writ of
summons and statement of claim. Both processes were served on the appellant on
24th November, 1994. The appellant entered an appearance on 25th November 1994,
but did not file a statement of defence. When the case came up for hearing, on
26th January, 1995 respondent applied orally for judgment in default of
statement of defence under Order 27 Rule 4 of the Borno State High Court, 1988.
The trial court entered judgment accordingly in terms of the writ of summons
and the statement of claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant
appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Garba v. Sheda International (Nig.) Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 113
- Publication Date: 2002-07-29
ALHAJI (DR.) BAWA GARBA
A.B.G. COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
V
SHEDA INTERNATIONAL
(NIG.) LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( KADUNA DIVISION )
ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA (
Presided )
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
VICTOR ALMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE,
JCA
CA/K/93/2000
WEDNESDAY, 27TH JUNE, 2001
BANKING AND FINANCE - Interest -Award of on unproved claim - Whether justified
BANKING
AND FINANCE - Investment attracts profit, not interest - Reason therefor
BANKING
AND FINANCE - Money placed on deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to
investment
BANKING
AND FINANCE - Ordinary debt - Interest thereon - When recoverable at common law
BANKING AND FINANCE -
Shares - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an investment -
When transforms to an investment
COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTIONS - Investment attracts profit, not interest - Reason therefor
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Money placed on
deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to investment
COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTIONS - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an
investment - When transforms to an investment
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Ordinary debt -
Interest thereon - When recoverable at common law
COMPANY
LAW - Investment attracts profit, not interest - Reason therefor
COMPANY
LAW - Joint venture company - Money invested in a joint venture by a promoter
or investor in a duly registered company - Withdrawal or pay back of the money
so invested to such investor or promoter Effect of on the joint venture
COMPANY
LAW - Money placed on deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to investment
COMPANY LAW - Promoter -
Promise to pay promoter by the company for services rendered - Whether binding
- Whether a past consideration
COMPANY
LAW - Promoter - Services rendered before the promotion of a company by
promoter - Whether has right against the company for payment of services so
rendered
COMPANY
LAW - Promoter of a company - Fiduciary position of - Whether promoter an agent
or trustee of a company
COMPANY
LAW - Promoter of a company - Who is
COMPANY LAW - Shares - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an investment - When transforms to an investment
COURT
- Interest - Award of on unproved claim - Whether justified
COURT
- Simple debt or liquidated money demand - Claim for under Order 22 , rule 1 of
the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Whether High Court has jurisdiction thereon
EVIDENCE
- Affidavit - Conflict therein - Whether
can be resolved only by calling oral evidence - Relevance of authentic
documentary evidence which supports one of the affidavits in conflict with
another
EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Conflict
therein - Duty of court to call oral evidence
JURISDICTION
- As basis on which any court of law tries a case Importance of as life-line of
all trials
JURISDICTION
- Simple debt or liquidated money demand - Claim for under Order 22, rule 1 of
the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Whether High Court has jurisdiction thereon
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Interest - Award of on unproved claim Whether justified
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Simple debt or liquidated money demand - Claim for under Order 22, rule 1 of the
Kaduna State High Court ( Civil Procedure ) Rules, 1987 - Whether High Court
has jurisdiction thereon
Issues:
1.
Whether having regard to the claims of the respondent,
the trial court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
2.
Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case,
the respondent’s claim could be taken as a debt or liquidated money demand
within the meaning and contemplation of Order 22, rule 1 of the High Court of
Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987.
3.
Whether the trial court was right when it dismissed the
appellant’s case having regard to its failure to call or order for oral
evidence to resolve the glaring conflicts in the affidavit evidence before it.
4.
Whether the lower court was right in awarding the
respondent’s claim on interest.
Facts:
By an
agreement in 1993, the appellants and the respondent agreed to form a joint
venture to be known as Jos Cable Satellite Limited. Pursuant to that agreement
in Kaduna, the respondent paid the sum of $40,000.00 and £35,000.00
respectively to the appellants as the respondent’s contributions or shares in
the proposed joint venture which ultimately resulted in the incorporation of
the company, Jos Cable Satellite Limited. Not long after the incorporation of
the company, the respondent became dissatisfied with the venture and therefore
decided to withdraw from it by a letter dated 14/3/ 95 addressed to the 1st appellant asking for the
repayment of the sums paid towards the venture together with interest. In their
reply dated 4/10/95, the appellants agreed to the withdrawal of the respondent
from the joint venture and also agreed to refund the sums of $40,000.00 and
£35,000.00 respectively paid by the respondent towards the joint venture but
did not say anything on interest on the amount. Pursuant to their agreeing to
pay back the sums invested, the appellants had between 26/9/96 and 8/9/97, paid
a total sum of $40,000.00 and £20,000.00 to the respondent thereby leaving a
balance of £15,000.00. It was when this balance could not be paid by the
appellants in spite of undertaking to do so, that the respondent instituted
this action to recover the balance of £15,000.00 together with 21% interest on
the total amount paid to the appellants. The lower court granted the reliefs
sought by the respondent with 10% interest under the undefended list of that
court, hence the present appeal.
M.V. “Caroline Maersk†v. Nokoy Invest. Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 113
- Publication Date: 2002-07-29
1. THE M. V. “CAROLINE MAERSKâ€
SISTER VESSEL TO MV
CHRISTIAN MAERSK
2. THE OWNERS OF THE MV “CHRISTIAN MAERSKâ€
3. MAERSK (NIGERIA) LIMITED
V
NOKOY INVESTMENT
LIMITED
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC (
Presided )
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SC.
250/2000
FRIDAY,
7TH JUNE 2002
AGENCY -Agent - Agent in contract of carriage of goods by sea - Special
liability of - section 16(3) of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act
AGENCY - Agent - Vicarious liability of for default of his principal
Consideration of
APPEAL
- Misdirection - Whether every misdirection is fatal to a decision
CONTRACT
- Contractual liability under common law
CONTRACT
- Contractual liability under French law
COURT - Claims made ‘further or in the
alternative’ - Approach of court thereto - Federal High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1976
COURT - Clear and
unambiguous statute - Attitude of court thereto COURT - Relief sought by a
party - Alternative relief - Trial court considering same while granting
principal relief - Advantage of
CURRENCY
- Gold value - Meaning of
CURRENCY
- Naira - Gold value of - How determined
CURRENCY - Naira - Parity of - Decimal Currency Act (Cap. 92) section
1(2)
SHIPPING LAW - Agent - Agent in contract of carriage of goods by sea
Special liability of - section 16(3) of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act
SHIPPING LAW - Agent- Liability of in terms of section 16(3) of
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act - Essential part of cause of action for
SHIPPING LAW - Arrival of a ship - Date of arrival of - Date of
discharge of cargo - Difference between
SHIPPING
LAW - Award - Award of invoice value - When permissible -
Duty
on plaintiff claiming
SHIPPING
LAW - Carrier - Burden of proof thereon - What determines
SHIPPING
LAW - Carrier - Liability of - Limit thereof
SHIPPING LAW - Carrier - Liability of - Limitation thereof fixed at
N200 per package - Effect of Article IX of Hague Rules thereon
SHIPPING LAW - Carrier - Limit of liability of - Applicable rules for
calculation of
SHIPPING LAW - Carrier - Where liable for loss or damage to goods
Relevant evidence to the defence of
SHIPPING LAW - Failure of defendant to deliver the quality or quantity
of cargoes it ought to deliver
SHIPPING LAW - Goods received in good order by carrier - Liability for
loss or damage thereto
SHIPPING
LAW - Negligence - Plea of - Whether necessary when the plaintiff has proved
the defendant’s failure to deliver the quality or quantity of cargoes it ought
to deliver
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Claims made ‘further or in the alternative’ -
Approach of court thereto - Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1976
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Relief sought by a party - Alternative relief
- Purport of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Relief sought by a party - Alternative relief
- Trial court considering same while granting principal relief
- Advantage of
STATUTE - Decimal Currency Act (Cap. 92) section 1(2) - Parity of naira
thereunder
STATUTE - Section 16(3) of Admiralty jurisdiction Act - Agent
thereunderSpecial liability of
STATUTE
- Clear and unambiguous statute - Attitude of court thereto
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Gold value’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the liability of the 2nd defendant was strict.
2.
Whether the trial court misconceived the evidence led
in support of the defendant’s case.
3.
Whether the 3rd defendant being an agent of the 1st and
2nd defendants should have been held liable as there was neither evidence nor
finding that the damage occurred in Nigeria.
Facts:
The plaintiff
herein, a registered company carrying on business of exporting of sea foods,
entered into an agreement with the Maersk Nig. Ltd., the 3rd defendant to ship
1,202 cartons of frozen Atlantic gold shrimps valued at US$71,516.50 in a
vessel called Christian Maersk, owned by the 2 nd defendant from Lagos Port to
Algeciras Port in Spain. The shrimps were of good consumable quality when
shipped from Lagos. The goods were carried under a bill of lading issued in
Lagos. On 4th March and 14th April 1994, the Spanish Health Authority issued
two reports stating that the shrimps were not suitable for first inspection due
to abnormal odour, unsatisfactory appearance etc.
Dispute arose as
to when the shrimps deteriorated. The plaintiff claimed that it was during the period of carriage by sea, while the
defendants asserted that the shrimps deteriorated after their arrival in Spain.
At the conclusion of trial, the trial Federal High Court found for the
plaintiff and dismissed the defendants’ counter-claim. On appeal to the Court
of Appeal, the defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
Dissatisfied the defendant further appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Melwani v. Feed Nation Industry (Nig.) Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 113
- Publication Date: 2002-07-29
J. K. MELWANI
V
FEED NATION INDUSTRY
(NIG.) LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( IBADAN DIVISION )
UCHE OMO, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Ruling )
JOHN HEZEKIAH OMOLOLU-THOMAS, JCA
IBRAHIM KOLAPO SULU-GAMBARI,
JCA
CA/I/M.80/86
TUESDAY, 7TH OCTOBER, 1986
COMPANY LAW AND PRACTICE - Shareholder - Where seeks to claim the whole
amount contributed by him to the company - Legal effect of - Whether thereby indirectly
seeks his own removal from the company
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution -
Grant of - Conditions therefor - Need to show special circumstances before
granting same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Grant of - Purpose thereof
Issues:
1.
Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the
applicant had failed to show special circumstances warranting the grant of
same.
2.
What is the legal effect of a shareholder in a company
seeking to withdraw the whole amount contributed as his financial contribution
(by way of shares) to the company?
Facts:
The action in this suit had been
commenced following a protracted disagreement between the shareholders and
directors of the respondent company. The applicant herein was the first
Managing Director of the respondent company. The respondent brought an action
against the applicant in the Oyo State High Court claiming from him the sum of
N206.684.14 representing sums allegedly withdrawn by the applicant on various
occasions from the respondent’s bank account either by himself or through his
agents. The applicant counter-claimed for the sum of N136,000.00 being money he
contributed to the respondent company. The trial court held in its judgment for
the respondent that the correct amount contributed (by way of shareholding) by
the applicant to the respondent company was N62,000.00.
Dissatisfied,
the applicant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. He subsequently applied
to the High Court for a stay of execution which application was refused.
Pursuant to the refusal, the respondent successfully levied execution against
the personal effects of the applicant. He later filed this application in the
Court of Appeal alleging, among others, that he had no means to pay the
judgment debt and that the judgment given in favour of the respondent was
tantamount to removing him from the company.
BENSON OBIAKOR
NGOZIKA OBIAKOR
V
THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JSC ( Presided )
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SC.
327/2001
FRIDAY,
7TH JUNE 2002
APPEAL - Issue for determination - Fresh issue - Issue which did not
form part of evidence of the courts below - Whether requires leave of the
Supreme Court to file and argue
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Issue of jurisdiction - Whether can be raised at the Supreme Court
for the first time without leave
COURT - Supreme Court - Whether issue of jurisdiction can be raised
thereat as fresh issue without leave
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Christian couple tried for
offence thereof - Effect of section 34 of the Criminal Code in respect of -
Whether husband and wife being part of the other can commit the offence of
conspiracy
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Conviction therefor Whether
circumstantial evidence can ground same
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Failure of conviction on
substantive charge - Whether leads to failure of conviction on conspiracy
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Conspiracy - Meaning of - When safe to
convict therefor
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Prosecution - Duty of to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt - Whether requires proof with absolute certainty
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Prosecution - Duty thereon to prove guilt
of accused person - Whether same can be displaced by suspicion
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Suspicion - Whether can constitute a crime
or ground a conviction
EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence
- Whether can ground conviction for conspiracy
EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence - Purport of - Need for to lead to
accused’s guilt before same can ground conviction
JURISDICTION - Issues of - Whether can be raised at the Supreme Court
as fresh issue without leave
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Conspiracy’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the
conviction and sentence of the 1st and 2nd appellants (husband and wife) of a
Christian marriage for conspiracy to murder committed by themselves alone
contrary to section 34 of the Criminal Code, Laws of Bendel State 1976, Cap. 48
,
( applicable to Delta State of
Nigeria ).
2.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the
conviction of the 1st appellant for conspiracy to murder when the prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the substantive count of murder.
3.
Whether having regard to the evidence the prosecution
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the 1st appellant.
Facts:
The appellants’
herein, a couple, were jointly charged with the offences of conspiracy and
murder of one Kingsley Ilesanmi, a three (3) year old son of PW1 at the High
Court, Asaba, Delta State. Mrs.
Henrietta Ilesanmi together with her the deceased came to Asaba on a visit to
her elder brother Sylvester Okolie (PW2) who is a tenant of the 1st appellant
living in the same compound with 1st and 2nd appellants and their family. On
the day of the incident, Kelechi the daughter of the appellants carried the deceased
away from his mother to play outside. After sometime the daughter of PW2,
brought the rubber shoes worn by Ilesanmi when Kelechi took him out. Mrs.
Ilesanmi then started to look for the whereabouts of her son. In the course of
the search, PW2 asked Kelechi for the boy’s whereabouts but Kelechi said she
dropped the boy by the door step of the compound and left him there. All
efforts to get more information from Kelechi was prevented by the 2nd
appellant.
The matter was
then reported to the police. The 1st appellant after being manhandled by
soldiers suggested a search of the well (already searched) in which the
deceased corpse was found. Post-mortem examination revealed cause of death to
be due to acute respiratory failure as a result of suffocation.
Onyeanusi v. Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal
- ₦ 200
- Part: 113
- Publication Date: 2002-07-29
CHIKEZIE ONYEANUSI
V
MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES TRIBUNAL,
EASTERN ZONE, OWERRI
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Presided )
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC
SC.49/1996
FRIDAY,
31ST MAY, 2002
COURT - Inferior Court or Tribunal - Ouster clause in law establishing
same - Intention thereof - Whether can protect the Court or Tribunal against a
violation of its jurisdictional limit
COURT - Jurisdiction of - When ousted by provision of a statute - When
court is bound to apply
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Arson - Whether the offence of covers both
public and private buildings - Whether same comes within the provision of
section 3(4)(a), of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Decree 20 of 1984, section 3(4) (a)
Dwelling home in the context thereof - Whether restricted to public dwelling
home
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Decree 22 of 1986, section 3(4) - Public
building thereunder - Whether house rented by Federal Government acquires
characteristic of public building
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Decree No. 20 of 1984, section 10 - Definition of ‘public building’, ‘dwelling house’, ‘office’ thereunder
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Decree No. 20 of 1984, section 8(1) Whether
deprives the court of jurisdiction over the Miscellaneous
Offence
Tribunals jurisdictional limits
INTERPRETATION
OF STATUTE - Mischief rule - Application of
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Mischief rule - Decree No. 20 of 1984,
section 3(4)(a) - The mischief same is directed against
LAND LAW - Real estate - ‘Public building, dwelling house and office
Definition of section 10 of Decree No. 20 of 1984 (Interpretation section)
applied
NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT - Impropriety of court ignoring unambiguous
provisions of an enactment such as section 3(4)(a) of Decree No. 20 of 1984
STATUTE - Decree No. 22 of 1986, section 3(4) - Public building
thereunder - Whether house rented by
Federal Government acquire character of public building
STATUTE - Enactments - Unambiguous provisions of - Where treated by
court with cant respect or ignored without strong reason - Impropriety of
STATUTE - Ouster clause - Ouster clause on law establishing an inferior
court or tribunal - Intention thereof - Whether same can protect such court or
tribunal against a violation of its jurisdictional limits
STATUTE - Provision of - Where ousts jurisdiction of court - When the
court is bound to apply
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Dwelling home’ - Meaning of
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Office’ - Meaning of WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Public building’ -
Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the question of the construction/interpretation
of section 3(4)(a) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree
No. 22 of 1986 was the very thing
referred to the Court of Appeal by the appellant.
2.
Whether on a true and correct
construction/interpretation of section 3(4) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended
by Decree No. 22 of 1986, the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion, that
the offence under which the appellant and 33 others were charged in count one
comes under section 3(4)(a) of Decree No, 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No.
22 of 1986.
3.
Whether section 8(1) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as
amended by
Decree No. 20 of 1986 ousts the
jurisdiction of Imo State High Court of Justice for all purposes as held by
C.B.C. Ubah, J. and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
4.
Whether taking into account the circumstances of this
case, the Court of Appeal should not have made an order setting aside the
ruling of the High Court of Imo State (C.B.C. Ubah, J.) dated 30th April, 1991
and prohibited the respondent from further proceeding with the trial of charge
No. M.O.J./IM/ 16C/90; the Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Chikezie
Onyeanusi and 33 Others.
Facts:
The appellant
and 33 others were arraigned before the respondent (The Miscellaneous Offences
Tribunal, Eastern Zone, Owerri) on a twocount charge of arson of dwelling
houses under (i) section 3(4)(a) of Special Tribunal Decree, 1984 as amended by
Decree No. 22 of 1986 and (ii) arson of cultivated crops under section 3(5) of
the said Decree.
The appellant’s
ex-parte application for leave to apply for an order of prohibition to restrain
the respondent (the Tribunal) from further proceeding with the matter on the ground
that the respondent lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the said
charge was however granted by the High Court. Subsequently, the appellant filed
a motion on notice for an order of prohibition against the respondent. At the
conclusion of hearing of the motion the trial court ruled that it can not
properly issue a prerogative order or otherwise entertain anything done or
purported to be done under the decree, the court therefore struck out the
motion and discharged the interim order.
The appellant’s
appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. Dissatisfied, the appellant
further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered and
interpreted section 3(4)(a) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No.
22 of 1986.
The
Supreme Court considered the provisions of some statutes:
Section 3(4)(a) and (5) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended
by Decree No.
22 of 1986 provides :
“4. Any person who wilfully or maliciously sets fire -
(a)
to any public building, dwelling house, office or
structure whatsoever, whether completed
or not, occupied or not; or
(b)
...
(c)
..., shall be guilty of an offence and liable on
conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(5) Any person
who wilfully or maliciously sets fire to any stack of cultivated vegetable
produce or mineral or vegetable field shall be guilty of an offence and liable
on conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years
without option of fine.†Section 3(2)(a)(i) provides:
“3(2)
Without prejudice to sub-section (1) of this section, any person who does any
of the following things shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree and
shall be proceeded against and punished as provided in this Decree, that is to
say -
(a) commits
arson, that is, the wilful and unlawful burning of any of the following
things:-
(i) any
public building or structure whatsoever whether completed or not;â€
Section 8(1) of
Special Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offences) Decree No. 20 0f 1984 provides:
“No civil proceedings shall lie
or be instituted in any court for or on account of or in respect of any act,
matter or thing done or purported to be done under or pursuant to this Decree
and if any such proceedings are instituted before, on or after the commencement
of this Decree the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and made void.â€
Section 12 of Decree No. 67 of 1968
provides:
“12. The validity of any direction, notice or
order given or made or of any other thing whatsoever done, as the case may
be, under this Decree, or the circumstances under which such direction, notice
or order has been given or made or other thing whatsoever done, shall not be
inquired into in any court of law, and accordingly nothing in the provision of
Chapter III of the Constitution of the Federation (1963) shall apply in
relation to any matter arising out of this Decree or out of any enactment or
other law repealed by this Decree.â€
Section 443 of the Criminal Code provides:
“443. Any person who wilfully and unlawfully sets
fire to any
of the following things:-
(a) any
building or structure whatever, whether completed or not;
...
is
guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment
for life.â€
EZEKIEL PETERS
V
ANIEDI UDOFIA JACKSON
COURT OF APPEAL
( CALABAR DIVISION )
D. ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
OKWUCHUKWU OPENE, JCA
SIMEON OSUJI EKPE, JCA
CA/C/141/99
TUESDAY,
26TH JUNE, 2001
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Need for to be hinged on grounds of
appeal - Need for grounds of appeal to relate to decision appealed against
APPEAL - Need for to be premised on a decision of lower court appealed
against - Whether there can be appeal against what had not been decided against
a party
COURT
- Appellate court - When retrial order will be made thereby
EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Conflicts therein - Whether authentic
documentary evidence can be called to resolve same
EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Conflicts therein - Whether oral
evidence can be called to resolve same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Originating summons instituting actions
thereby - When appropriate - When inappropriate
Issues:
1. Whether it was competent for the court below to wade suo motu into the domestic province of adequacy of consideration especially as the contract was under seal.
2.
Whether the findings of the court below that only the
sum of N600,000 was paid by the appellant to the respondent was justified.
Facts:
The appellant
herein filed action at the High Court of Cross River State, sitting in Calabar
claiming declaratory reliefs, damages and injunction against the respondent.
The suit commenced by originating summons sought for the determination of the
court the following question: whether it is lawful for the defendant after
assigning the totality of his interest in the property by a valid deed of
assignment and for valuable consideration to the plaintiff to keep on
exercising ownership rights over the same property, the subjectmatter of the
assignment and the consequences of such action in the circumstances.
The appellant
filed an affidavit of 15 paragraphs with six exhibits while the respondent
filed a counter-affidavit of 23
paragraphs with three exhibits. The appellant also filed a
further-affidavit of 12 paragraphs with seven exhibits while the respondent
also filed a further and better affidavit of 9 paragraphs thereto. Neither
parties called oral evidence in support
of all their averments in the various affidavits.
After the conclusion of counsel
addresses, the learned trial Judge, dismissed all the claims of the appellant.
The appellant being dissatisfied with the said decision has filed this appeal.
UAC OF NIGERIA PLC
V
MADAM IKOLE IROLE
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN, JCA ( Presided )
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA (
Read the Lead Judgment )
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA
CA/B/224/98
FRIDAY, 12TH MAY, 2000
COURT - Appellate court
- When appellate court may re-evaluate evidence adduced before the trial court
COURT - Damages awarded
by a lower court - When appellate court will interfere therewith
DAMAGES - Damages
awarded by a lower court - When appellate court will interfere therewith
DAMAGES - Origin of
damages - Award of damages - Principles of law guiding same
DAMAGES - Special and
general damages - Distinction between - Need to aver both arms of damages
EVIDENCE - Evaluation
of evidence - Evidence adduced before trial court
- When appellate court can re-evaluate
Issue:
Whether the learned trial Judge
is right in his decision.
Facts:
The plaintiff/respondent filed an
action at Warri High Court against the defendant/appellant seeking
N5,000,000.00 as general damages as a result of the injuries she sustained from
an accident involving her canoe and the defendant’s/appellant’s tugboat
negligently driven by its staff leading to amputation of her leg.
The plaintiff/respondent in the early hours of 25th October, 1993 set
out in a canoe with her items of trade and wares from Oberada to Ekenwan to
sell them. According to her, she made sure the canoe was
fit and save as well as putting up a light for other users of the
waterways. She asserted further that at
a point about the Dolofa river, the appellant by its staff negligently,
recklessly and without due care for the plaintiff or other road users drove the
tugboat in such a manner that its propeller blade cut her two legs. The defendant/appellant however, denied the
plaintiff’s averment and asserted that in fact the accident occurred due to the plaintiff’s negligence and recklessness.
After the conclusion of hearing
and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, Obi J. gave judgment against
the defendant and awarded the sum of N3,000,000.00 as well as N2,000.00 cost in
favour of the plaintiff.
Dissatisfied
with the judgment, the defendant/appellant brought this appeal.
PIUS ADAKA
ONWUMERE OSU
JONATHAN UKEJE
ANENE ONUNUJU
( For themselves and on behalf of the people
of EMEHABA Family of Umuopia, Akokwa)
ALOYSIUS NGAWUCHI
GABRIEL CHUKWU
PETER NWOSU
PETER ASOGWO
EMMANUEL AKABOGU
REGINA NWOSU
DAVID UME
UME UKEJE
UBA UZOGBERE
CLEMENT UKACHI
ALOYSIUS NNAGBORO
EVARIST AKOGHERE
DOMINIC OSUIGWE
OGBUKAGU MBAKWE
SILAS UKEJE
ALPHONSUS OSUEKE
NNANNA USUEKE
FABIAN ONWUACHU ( alias “ACHARA†)
FIDELIS UKACHI
CHUKWUMA OKEKE
V
CHRISTOPHER ANEKWE
EMMANUEL EZEALA
SAMUEL ONUOHA
( Substituted for Richard Agodi and Benjamin
Onyekanma). By order of the Court of
Appeal on 3/5/95)
[ For themselves and on behalf of the people
of
Umudike, Uzii]
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC (Presided)
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SC.56/1997
FRIDAY,
7TH JUNE, 2002
INJUNCTION - Mandatory
and restrictive injunction - Applicable law for the enforcement thereof -
Whether changed by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Uhumwangbo and Hart cases
INJUNCTION
- Mandatory and restrictive injunction - Enforcement thereof
- Relevant law
Issues:
1.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that
the Supreme Court had by its decision in Osayande
Uhunwangbo vs. P. I. Okojie & anor. (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 126) 276 changed the law as to the
enforcement of mandatory and restrictive injunctions and in failing to apply
the said decisions to the present matter so as to hold that foreign rules of
court were not applicable to this matter.
2.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that
Order 42 rule 7 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of England 1956 was
applicable to the application for committal before the trial court in this
matter by virtue of section 16 of the High Court Law of Eastern Nigeria, 1963,
and in ordering the remittal of the application for committal to the trial
court of hearing on the merits under the said foreign court rules.
3.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that
the leave of the trial court was not required before commencing committal
proceedings against the 5th - 24th appellants who were not named defendants in
suit No. HOR/8/74.
4.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that
the appellants abandoned their ground of objection in the trial court and
raised new issues before it.
Facts:
The respondents,
as plaintiffs, in the trial court instituted this action on a representative
capacity for an injunction and damages for trespass against the
defendants/appellants. The trial court
at the conclusion of trial entered judgment for the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the
Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondents’ claim. The respondents appealed to the Supreme
Court. Subsequently, both parties
settled their dispute out of court and drew up the terms of settlement which
became the order and judgment of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, there was an alleged disobedience
of the order by the appellants.
The respondents
therefore commenced committal proceedings against the appellants for
disobedience to the terms of settlement agreed to between the parties and made
an order and judgment of the Supreme Court.
The appellants raised a preliminary objection to the application for the
alleged contempt. The trial court heard
counsel for the parties on the objection and overruled it. The court therefore ordered that the
committal application be heard on merit.
Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed
against this order to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and remitted the committal
application to the trial court for hearing on its merit. The appellants further appealed to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court however
considered whether the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Uhunwangbo vs. Okojie and Hart vs. Hart had changed the law as to
the enforcement of mandatory and restrictive injunction.
ANSELEM AKALONU
V
THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JSC
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC
SC.
162/2000
FRIDAY,
14TH JUNE, 2002
APPEAL - Findings of court - Concurrent findings of both the trial
court and the Court of Appeal - Whether the Supreme Court will interfere
therewith
COURT - Findings of court - Concurrent findings of both the trial court
and the Court of Appeal - Whether the Supreme Court will interfere therewith
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Witnesses
- Number of witnesses to be called by prosecution - Discretion of
prosecution in respect of
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Witnesses - Tainted witness Whether blood
relationship of a witness and deceased makes the witness tainted
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Witnesses
- Tainted witness - Who is a tainted witness
Issues:
1.
Whether PW1
and PW4 are tainted witnesses.
2. Whether the police investigated the case.
3. What is the effect of section 149(d) of the Evidence Act, 1990 on the prosecution’s case with regard to the failure of the prosecution to call numerous identified witnesses of the incident.
4. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the appellant caused the death of the deceased.
Facts:
The appellant
herein was charged with the offence of murder of one Edmon Uzoma contrary to
section 319 of the Criminal Code at the High Court, Owerri. At trial the
prosecution called a total number of five witnesses two of which were star eye
witnesses. The appellant testified in his own defence and called no witnesses.
At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty as
charged and sentenced him to death.
Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which
also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Further dissatisfied the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
1. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
2. NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA
3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
V
1. MORENIKE O. SOULE HARRIS
2. OLUSEYE JOHNSON
3. ASHABI IDUNSI
4. ADUKE SOULE
5. AKANNI MOROTI SHELLE
6. BILIKISU SOULE
7. SIDIKAT SOULE
8. SHERIFFAT SOULE
COURT OF APPEAL
( LAGOS DIVISION )
GEORGE
A. OGUNTADE, JCA ( Presided and Read the
Lead Judgment )
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JCA
CA/L/391/97
MONDAY,
16TH JULY, 2001
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS -
Judgment debt - Whether judgment debtor will be allowed to retain same pending
appeal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
- Litigant - Confidence of in the judicial system - Need to sustain same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
- Litigant - Successful litigant - Whether can be denied the fruit of his
judgment
Issue:
Whether there are special circumstances necessitating the
grant of an order staying the execution of the terms of judgment of the trial
court.
Facts:
The respondents herein got judgment for
N43 million as damages against the defendants/appellants jointly and severally
for trespass and unlawful occupation of the property known as No. 16 Williams
Street, Lagos. The 1st and 2nd
defendants/appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed an appeal
against it. In their appeal the
appellants filed an application for a stay of execution of the terms of the
judgment of the trial court pending the determination of this appeal.
Ikono Local Govt. v. De Beacon Finance & Sec. Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 114
- Publication Date: 2002-08-05
IKONO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
V
DE BEACON FINANCE
& SECURITIES LIMITED
COURT OF APPEAL
( CALABAR DIVISION )
DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA ( Presided )
OKWUCHUKWU OPENE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SIMEON OSUJI EKPE, JCA
CA/C/46/2000
THURSDAY, 12TH JULY, 2001.
COURT - Applications - Need for court to consider and make specific
findings on every prayer - Need for courts to consider all essential issues before
it before arriving at its decision
EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Paragraphs of not specifically
challenged deemed admitted
EVIDENCE - Unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence - How treated
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - ‘Perverse decision’ - Meaning of
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment debt - Application to court by judgment
debtor under Order 5 rule 8(1), Judgment Enforcement Rules - Need for court to
stay execution of judgment pending enquiry and verification of actual
indebtedness of judgment debtor
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment debt - Application to court by judgment
debtor for enquiry or verification of actual judgment debt - Order 5 rule 8(1) and (2), Judgment
Enforcement Rules, Cap. 407, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - ‘Perverse finding’ -
Meaning of PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applications - Need for court to consider
and make specific findings on every prayer - Need for courts to consider all
essential issues before it before arriving at its decision
SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS - Judgment debt - Application to court by
judgment debtor under Order 5 rule 8(1), Judgment Enforcement Rules - Need for
court to stay execution of judgment pending enquiry and verification of actual
indebtedness of judgment debtor
SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS - Judgment debt - Application to court by
judgment debtor for enquiry or verification of actual judgment debt - Order 5
rule 8(1) and (2), Judgment Enforcement Rules, Cap.
407 , Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Perverse decision’ - Meaning of
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Perverse finding’ - Meaning of
Issue:
Whether the trial court actually considered prayer 3 on
the motion paper filed on 10/11/98 and whether it was right in law when it
awarded to the judgment-creditor the sum of N361,000.00 as the balance due to
it from the appellant out of the total contract sum of N1,456,000.00.
Facts:
The respondent, as the plaintiff,
had obtained judgment against the appellant in the High Court on 16/5/95 for
the sum of N1,456,000.00 in a claim placed on the undefended list.
The appellant as the judgment
debtor after making several part payments to liquidate the judgment debt filed
a motion on notice praying among other reliefs, the determination of the
outstanding balance of the judgment debt.
The application was brought under section 23 of the Sheriffs and Civil
Process Act, Cap. 407, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 and under Order
5 rules 5 and 8 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules. In delivering his ruling Nsima Akpabio, J. on
23/3/99 ordered the appellant to liquidate the sum of N361,000.00 being the
balance of judgment debt by instalmental payments of N50,000.00. The trial Judge failed however to consider
and rule on prayer 3 which asked the court to order an enquiry into the actual
judgment debt due and payable to the respondent.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellants have appealed to
this court.
CHIEF A. J. JIWUL
V
NDE JOSHUA DIMLONG
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JCA ( Presided )
ISA ABUBAKAR MANGAJI, JCA
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/J/45/96
WEDNESDAY,
27TH MARCH, 2002
APPEAL - Evaluation of evidence by trial court - When appellate court
can interfere therewith
COURT
- Defendant raising equitable defences - Duty of court to consider
COURT - Issues canvassed by parties - Need for court to limit itself
thereto - Failure of - Effect
COURT - Reliefs not specifically claimed by a party - Whether Court can
grant
COURT
- Special defence - Whether court can raise suo motu
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Charge of fraud, commission of crimes or
illegality - Need to specifically plead and prove same beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 138, Evidence Act
EQUITY
- ‘Actual notice’ - When had
EQUITY - “Bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without
notice†- Implication of
EQUITY - Acquiescence - Nature of that can deprive a man of his legal
right
EQUITY - Caveat emptor - Purchaser of land - Duty of to make inquiry
about equitable interests with no less diligence than legal interests
EQUITY - Constructive notice - Duty of purchaser to enquire about
equitable interests
EQUITY - Equitable defences of estoppel, laches and acquiescence
Whenever raised in pleadings - Duty of court to consider same
EQUITY - Equitable defences of
estoppel, laches and acquiescence, purchaser for value without notice - Need to
specifically plead same with full particulars
EQUITY - Laches and acquiescence - Elements that must exist in order to
avail a defendant who wishes to rely on them
EQUITY - Laches and acquiescence - Whenever raised - What the court
considers - Whether available where there are no lapses at all
EQUITY - Laches and acquiescence - Whether the court can suo motu raise
- Where reasonable for the court to so raise - Duty on court to give parties
opportunity to address it on the issues before deciding on them
EQUITY - Purchaser of land - Duty of to make enquiry from adjoining
land owners before his purchase - When constructive notice can be attributed to
such a purchaser
EQUITY - Special defence - Where a defendant seeks to rely on - Need to
specifically plead same - Failure to - Effect of
EVIDENCE
- Burden of proving facts in pleadings - On whom lies
EVIDENCE - Charge of fraud, commission of crimes or illegality - Need
to specifically plead and prove same beyond reasonable doubt - Section
138
, Evidence Act
EVIDENCE
- Evidence being at variance with pleadings - Effect thereto
LAND
LAW - ‘Purchaser’ - Meaning of
LAND
LAW - Caveat emptor - Purchaser of land - Duty of to make inquiry about
equitable interests with no less diligence than legal interests
LAND LAW - Certificate of occupancy - Contextual essence of - Onus on a
party who asserts the contrary
LAND LAW - Constructive notice - Duty of purchaser to enquire about
equitable interests
LAND
LAW - Ownership of land - Respective ways to prove
LAND LAW - Possession - Disputing parties claiming to have been in
possession of land - Issue to determine is who had a better title
LAND
LAW - Possession per se - Whether proof of ownership
LAND LAW - Purchaser of land - Duty of to make enquiry from adjoining
land owners before his purchase - When constructive notice can be attributed to
such a purchaser
LAND LAW - Root of title
- Proof of sale and acts of possession - Whether constitute proof of a party’s
root of title - Whether mere incidences of ownership
LAND
LAW - Survey plan - Purpose of - When required and when not
LAND LAW - Title to land - Party who relies on purchase of land in
establishing his title to land - Onus on to prove the title of his vendor
PLEADINGS - Averments in pleadings - Evidence not led in proof thereof
- Effect
PLEADINGS
- Bindingness of on parties - Proof of - On whom rest
PLEADINGS
- Burden of proving facts in pleadings - On whom lies
PLEADINGS - Charge of fraud, commission of crimes or illegality - Need
to specifically plead and prove same beyond reasonable doubt Section 138,
Evidence Act
PLEADINGS - Equitable defences of estoppel, laches and acquiescence,
purchaser for value without notice - Need to specifically plead same with full
particulars
PLEADINGS
- Evidence being at variance with pleadings - Effect
PLEADINGS
- Special defence - Whether court can raise suo motu
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Issues - Issues which the court has power to
determine in a proceeding
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Issues canvassed - Need for court to limit itself thereto - Failure to - Effect of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Reliefs not specifically claimed by a party -
Whether court has power to grant
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Actual notice’ - When had
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Bonafide’ - Meaning of
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Legal estate’ - Meaning of
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Purchaser’ - Meaning of
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Value’ - Meaning of WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Without notice’ -
Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the defendant is entitled in law to those
declarations, issues and defences raised and resolved in his favour by the
court suo motu.
2.
Whether the defendant established his vendor’s title in
the face of the plaintiff’s case and having regard to the evidence.
3.
Whether exhibits F, M and K were admissible to defeat
the title of the plaintiff.
4.
Whether the plaintiff’s title is valid.
Facts:
The appellant, as plaintiff in the High
Court of Plateau State, holden at Pankshin, filed a suit claiming against the
respondent as defendant a declaration that he is the owner of that piece of
land lying and situate in the area known as Old Market, Pankshin in Pankshin
Town, and covering an area of over 0.60 Hectares, perpetual injunction and
general damages for trespass. Pleadings
were filed and exchanged by parties. The
respondent denied the claim. After the
conclusion of hearing and address of counsel for the parties, the trial court
delivered its judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant being dissatisfied with the
judgment, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HAMZA LAWAL
OBA SAMUEL BANUSO
(The Oloja of Igbesa)
V
KAFARU OKE
AKIN FAGBEYI
BALOGUN IDOWU
SUNDAY IDOWU
AKINDELE GBADAMOSI
COURT OF APPEAL
( IBADAN DIVISION )
MORONKEJI O. ONALAJA, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JCA
OLUFUNMILOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE,
JCA
CA/I/41/95
THURSDAY, 18TH JANUARY, 2001
ACTION - Condition precedent to an action - Nature of - Importance of
ACTION - Institution of action - Where a statute provides for resort to
administrative remedy before instituting an action - Failure to exhaust same -
Effect
COURT - Competence of - Determination of in an action
COURT - Duty of to avoid undue technicality
COURT - Jurisdiction of court - Condition precedent to exercise of - When objection as to non-compliance therewith
is raised - Duty of court
COURT - Proceedings of - When same may be attacked - Whether every
defect in procedure is always fatal to the proceeding
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Clear and unambiguous words of a statute -
How same should be interpreted
JURISDICTION - Action based on lack of jurisdiction - Effect of
JURISDICTION - Issue of jurisdiction - Whether can be raised and
challenged at any stage of proceedings
JURISDICTION - Jurisdiction of court - Importance of
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Writing bad and inelegant brief by Legal
Practitioners - Whether calls for continuing legal education
PLEADINGS - Functions of - Bindingness of on both parties and the court
PLEADINGS - Importance of - Need for to clearly state its purport
PLEADINGS - Inelegantly drafted pleadings - Legal effect of - Whether
plaintiff claiming as per writ of summons can amount to substantial miscarriage
of justice being a procedural irregularity or a mere lazy way of pleading that
should be discouraged
PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Consequential relief claimed as an
additional claim therein - Effect of on special relief claimed in the writ
vis-a-vis the fact that statement of claim supersedes the writ of
summons
PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - Whether supersedes the writ of summons
- Whether amplifies through facts
averred the real action a party pursues
PLEADINGS - The word ‘material’ in relation to pleadings - Meaning
thereof
PLEADINGS - Whether can be pleaded
PLEADINGS - Writ of summons - Statement of claim - Relationship there
between
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undue technicality - Duty on court to avoid
same and adhere to doing substantial justice
WORDS AND PHRASES - The word ‘material’ in relation to pleadings
Meaning thereof
Issues:
1.
Whether there was any competent claim before the court
in that respondents, under the rules of pleading, filed a statement of claim
wherein by its paragraph 36, they pleaded thus: “WHEREOF plaintiffs’ claim as
per their writ of summons.â€
2.
Whether the respondents’ case ought to have been
adjudicated upon when the respondents have not complied with appealing to the
commissioner in charge of Chieftaincy Affairs Ogun State before institution of
this case.
Facts:
The plaintiffs/respondents in the
High Court of Ogun State sitting at Ilaro Judicial Division filed a suit
against the defendants/appellants seeking court’s declaration that the Ogunya
Descendants are the only family entitled to the Baaleship of Imose Village;
that the 4th plaintiff/respondent is the right person duly nominated to be the
Baale of Imose village; that the 1st defendant/appellant is not the Baale of
Imose; injunctive order restraining the 1st defendant/appellant from parading
himself as Baale of Imose Village; and that the fourth (4th) plaintiff/respondent
should be installed by the 2nd defendant/appellant as Baale of Imose village.
Pleadings were exchanged and
trial was conducted whereby witnesses testified for the parties. At the
conclusion of hearing and addresses of their counsels, the learned trial court
gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents as per their writ of
summons.
Being
dissatisfied with the said judgment, the defendants/appellants have filed this
appeal challenging the trial court’s decision.
National Bank of Nig. Ltd v. Omotayo
- ₦ 200
- Part: 114
- Publication Date: 2002-08-05
NATIONAL BANK OF NIG. LTD.
V
OLALOYE OMOTAYO
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
RAPHAEL O. ROWLAND, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA
CA/B/288/99
MONDAY,
10TH JUNE, 2002
CONTRACT - Contract of employment - Specific performance in respect
of - Whether court will grant
COURT - Award to claimant that which he did not seek - Lack of power in
court to do so - Effect
COURT - Claim of party made in the alternative - Attitude of court
thereto
COURT - Contract of employment - Specific performance in respect
of Whether court will grant
DAMAGES - Contract of employment - Wrongful dismissal- Measure of
damages
EVIDENCE - Proof - Facts admitted - Whether need further proof -
Evidence Act, section 15
FAIR HEARING - Natural justice - Requirement for satisfying same in
disciplinary proceedings
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment - Specific performance in
respect of - Whether court will grant
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment - Unlawfully dismissed servant - Whether can claim wages for service never rendered thereby
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment - Wrongful dismissal
- Measure of damages
MASTER AND SERVANT - Misconduct - Test for determining
MASTER AND SERVANT - Misconduct in a case servant had enviable career
and goodwill - Whether a relevant factor in considering cessation of employment
of such servant
MASTER AND SERVANT - Natural justice - Requirement for satisfying same
in a disciplinary proceedings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Award to claimant that which he did not seek -
Lack of power in court to do so - Effect
Issues:
1.
Whether the trial court was wrong in holding that the
dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant was wrongful, unlawful, irregular,
null and void as the plaintiff has not misconducted himself to warrant the
dismissal.
2.
Whether the trial court was wrong in declaring that the
plaintiff is still an employee of the defendant bank.
3.
Whether the trial court was wrong in granting an order
of injunction restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from
continuing his subsisting employment in the service of the defendant.
4.
Whether the trial court was wrong in granting an
alternative claim of paying special damages to the plaintiff in case the
defendant decides not to accede (sic) the main claim.
Facts:
The plaintiff
herein was employed as a clearner in the defendant’s company. Following the
plaintiff’s involvement in an act of unruly behaviour and insubordination, he
was issued query and subsequently dismissed from the defendant company.
Consequently, the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant.
At the conclusion
of trial, the trial court found for the plaintiff and after granting the main
claim for unlawful termination of plaintiff’s employment, the trial court went
further to award damages as alternative if the defendant does not reinstate the
plaintiff.
Dissatisfied, the defendant
appealed to the Court of Appeal.
JAMES OBIJURU AND 2
OTHERS
V
LAWRENCE ANOKWURU AND
2 OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL
( PORT-HARCOURT
DIVISION )
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, JCA (
Presided )
SULE AREMU OLAGUNJU, JCA (
Read the Lead Judgment )
MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, JCA
CA/PH/57/94
TUESDAY, 12TH JUNE, 2001
APPEAL - Grounds of appeal - Where allege an
error in law and misdirection - Impropriety of - Effect
APPEAL - Preliminary objection to hearing of
- Condition precedent to Order 3 rule 15(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 -
Non-compliance with - Current attitude of the Supreme Court thereto
COURT - Error or slip of trial court -
Whether it is every such that will vitiate a decision on appeal
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction -When
to be refused in a land matter -Circumstances warranting substitution of order
of accelerated hearing for interlocutory injunction
LAND LAW - Interlocutory injunction -
Application for in a land matter
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Accelerated hearing
of land suit - Order of - When to be made instead of granting application for
interlocutory injunction
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Error or slip of trial court - Whether it is every such that will vitiate a decision on appeal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Grounds of
appeal - Where allege an error in law and misdirection - Impropriety of -
Effect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Preliminary
objection to hearing an appeal - Condition precedent to - Order 3 rule 15(1)
Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 - Non-compliance with - Current attitude of the Supreme Court
thereto
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Error or slip of
court - Whether it is every such that will vitiate a decision on appeal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory
injunction - When to be refused in a land matter - Circumstances warranting
substitution of order of accelerated hearing for interlocutory injunction
Issues:
1.
Whether the appellants satisfied all the conditions
laid down for granting an interlocutory injunction in a land matter.
2.
Whether the learned trial Judge is right to have made
an order of accelerated hearing of the action as a substitute for injunctive
reliefs sought by the appellants.
Facts:
This is an
interlocutory appeal from the ruling of Owerri High Court, refusing the
appellants’ application for interlocutory injunction. In the substantive claim,
the appellants as plaintiffs are seeking declaration of title, injunction and
damages for trespass against the defendants. The appellants filed an
application for interlocutory injunction which was supported by a copious
affidavit evidence and equally opposed by a copious counter-affidavit raising a
number of controversial issues that must be tried with the prospect of the
number being multiplied as the oral hearing progresses. With the
susceptibilities of treading on issues that are more appropriate to be tried in
the substantive action looming large, the learned trial Judge dismissed the
application for interlocutory injunction but made an order for accelerated
hearing instead. Dissatisfied, the appellants have filed this appeal contending
that they met the conditions for the grant of interlocutory injunction.
NNANTA ORIANWO
RICHARD WOSU
FRANKLIN AMADI
THOMAS ACHO
BONIFACE ELEWA
( For themselves and on
behalf ofRumuorianwo Wogozo Family)
V
L. O. OKENE
HARRISON OKENE
MAXWELL OKENE
( For themselves and as
representing theOkene Amadi Family)
V
HARRISON OKENE
MMANUEL OKENE
( On behalf of
themselves and other members of Okene Family)
V
FYNEFACE LAWA
CYPRIAN LAWA
JAMES ACHOR
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC (
Presided )
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC
SC.116/1998
7 TH JUNE, 2002
ACTION - Cross-action -
Nature of - Whether plaintiff therein can succeed on the weakness of the
defence in respect of the cross-action
ACTION - Cross-action - When may succeed where main action fails
EVIDENCE - Evidence for defendant - Where supports plaintiff’s case
Whether plaintiff can take advantage of
INJUNCTION - Injunction - Injunction granted in respect of land in
dispute - Effect of on the building
thereon - Quid quid plantatur solo, solo, cedit
LAND LAW - Injunction - Injunction granted in respect of land in
dispute -
Effect of on the building thereon - Quid quid plantatur solo, solo,
cedit
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Cross-action - Nature of - Whether plaintiff
therein can succeed on the weakness of the defence in respect of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Cross-action - When may succeed where main
action fails
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Evidence for defendant - Where supports
plaintiff’s case - Whether plaintiff can take advantage of
Issues:
1.
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal
were right in allowing the appeal on the ground that the trial court had failed
to make a finding of fact on the issue of the status of Amadi and Okene, when a
finding of fact on that issue was actually made by the trial court.
2.
Whether the failure by the learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal to consider the vital issue of ‘on whom the land in dispute
vested on the death of Wokerebe’ had not occasioned a great miscarriage of
justice.
3.
Assuming that the issue as to the status of Amadi and
Okene was not resolved by the trial court, were the learned Justices of the
Court of Appeal right in entering judgment for the defendants/respondents,
having not by themselves resolved the issue in favour of the defendants/respondents?
4.
Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right
in entering judgment for the defendants/respondents on the
[2002] F.W.L.R.
Orianwo vs. Okene
429
ground of the non-pleading by the
plaintiffs/appellants of the Ikwerre Native law and custom of burial rites of
deceased persons when what were the said burial rites had never been an issue
in the case?
5.
Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right
in not considering the plaintiffs/appellants’ cross-appeal and in making an
order striking out the cross-appeal?
6.
Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right
to have awarded damages to the defendants/respondents in trespass and in making
an order of injunction against the plaintiffs/ appellants?â€
Facts:
The plaintiffs commenced this
suit at the High Court of Rivers State Port Harcourt for a declaration to right
of occupancy, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants. After
the exchange of pleadings, the defendants subsequently commenced another suit
in respect of the same subject-matter and parties claiming damages and
perpetual injunction against the defendants.
The two suits were consolidated.
While plaintiffs in the first suit remained plaintiffs in the consolidated
suit, plaintiffs in the second suit became the defendants in the consolidated
suit.
At trial, both parties traced
their origin to a common ancestor called Wokerebe and agreed that the land in
dispute was part of the estate of their common ancestor. Parties equally agreed
that their ancestor had nine children and only 4 of the children were able to
perform the burial rites of their ancestor thereby entitled to inherit his
estate. While the plaintiffs’ ancestor Wogozo was amongst the four that
inherited the estate, the defendants’ ancestor was amongst the five younger one
who could not perform the burial rites because they were minor then, and
thereby were unable to inherit their father.
At the conclusion of trial, the
trial court chose the version of the plaintiffs’ traditional evidence as
against the defendants, he therefore entered judgment in favour of the
plaintiff and dismissed the claim of the defendants.
Dissatisfied, the defendants
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs too appealed in respect of the
trial court’s addendum to the judgment thus:
“I make no particular order in
respect of Charles Okene’s house which was completed during the pendency of
this case because the plaintiffs did not ask for a particular relief.â€
The Court of Appeal allowed the
defendants’ appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and entered
judgment for the defendants. As for the plaintiffs the Court of Appeal
dismissed their claim and the cross-appeal.
The plaintiffs as appellants
have further appealed to the Supreme Court.
Stirling Civil Eng. Nig. Ltd v. Yahaya
- ₦ 200
- Part: 114
- Publication Date: 2002-08-05
STIRLING CIVIL
ENGINEERING NIGERIA LIMITED
V
AMBASSADOR MAHMOOD
YAHAYA
COURT OF APPEAL
( KADUNA DIVISION )
ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, JCA
VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE,
JCA
CA/K/111/99
WEDNESDAY, 27TH JUNE, 2001
APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Failure to frame issue therefrom - Effect
APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Need to relate to its particulars - Failure
of to do so - Effect
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Fresh issue on appeal - How raised
Need to seek leave to raise same
COURT - Award of damages - Damages awarded by the trial court - When
the appellate court will interfere therewith - Guiding principles
DAMAGES - Award of damages - Damages awarded by the trial court -
When the appellate
court will interfere therewith - Guiding principles
DAMAGES - General damages - Award of - Whether can be awarded on a
claim in tort
DAMAGES - Special damages - How proved - Need for claimant to strictly
and specifically prove same
LAND LAW - Trespass - Claim for trespass to land - Finding of trial court therein - Duty on trial court to state whether it establishes trespass to land
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Plaintiff’s claim - Success of - Whether would
be on strength of plaintiff’s case
Issue:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding
N500,000.00 damages to the respondent having regard to the statement of claim,
evidence led and the findings of the court.
Facts:
The claim of the
plaintiff/respondent was that while constructing a dual carriage road about 4
years ago the defendant/appellant trespassed on his land and destroyed the
economic trees, such as banana, guava, grains of all sorts, date palms etc and
stole the top soil for use in constructing the dual carriage way. The
respondent also claimed that about 4 years ago he made N5m from the farm prior
to the incident. The respondent therefore instituted this action against the
defendant claiming the sum of N5m (five million naira) for trespass. The trial
court at the conclusion of trial awarded the sum of N500,000.00 as general
damages and cost of N5,000.00
The
defendant/appellant was dissatisfied and therefore appealed to the Court of
Appeal.
CHIEF ALIMONU
AJUKWARA
MANASA ODIKA
MICHAEL AJUKWARA
V
SEBASTINE IZUOJI
SYLVANUS OPARA
OFFURUM OMURUKA
DAMIAN OGARABE
THEOPHILUS IFURUEZE
BARTHRAM NDUKA
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Presided )
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC (
Read the Lead Judgment )
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JSC
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC
SC.15/1998
FRIDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2002
EVIDENCE - Evidence on facts not pleaded - Effect of
LAND LAW - Declaration of title - The rule
in Kojo vs. Bonsie - When applicable - Whether properly applied to the instant
case
LAND LAW - Injunction - Claim for - Whether
will fail after failure of claim for declaration of title
PLEADINGS - Evidence on facts not pleaded -
Effect of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Evidence on facts
not pleaded - Effect of
Issues:
1. Whether the court below was right when it held that the trial court misapplied the Rule in Kojo vs. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR1223.
2.
Whether the court below could rely on the alleged
misapplication of the Rule in Kojo vs.
Bonsie ( supra), to deny the appellants (plaintiffs) success even on their
claim for trespass.
3.
Whether the court below was right when it dismissed the
entirety of the claims of the
plaintiffs simply because it rejected the traditional history put forward by
the plaintiffs.
4.
Whether the court below was right when it dismissed the
crossappeal.
Facts:
The plaintiffs herein commenced
this suit at the High Court Oguta
claiming against the defendant, declaration of customary right of occupancy to
the land in dispute, perpetual injunction and general damages for trespass.
Pleadings were filed and exchanged. Both
parties pleaded boundary neighbours, acts of possession and traditional
history. At the conclusion of trial, the
trial court found for the plaintiffs and entered judgment on their behalf. Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the
Court of Appeal, the plaintiff also cross-appealed in respect of the finding by
the trial court that the founder of the land in dispute was Anyaoha instead of
Owerre.
MAJOR BUKAR ALIBE (RTD.)
V
ALHAJI YARO
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JCA ( Presided )
OLUDADE OLADAPO OBADINA, JCA
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/J/100/95
MONDAY,
9TH APRIL,2001
ACTION - Civil claims - Proof of - Whose duty - Whether a weak defence
removes the burden of proof on the plaintiff
APPEAL - Appellate court - Whether entitled to evaluate evidence after
the trial court has done so - Circumstances when to interfere
COURT - Appellate court - Whether entitled to appraise or evaluate
evidence afresh - Circumstances where same will interfere in the evaluation of
evidence and findings of fact of trial court - Circumstances when it will not
COURT
- Judgment and Proceedings of court - How proved
EVIDENCE - Evaluation of evidence
- Whose primary function Circumstances when appellate court will
interfere - Circumstances when appellate court will not interfere
EVIDENCE
- Judgment and Proceedings- Proof of - How done
EVIDENCE - Material evidence - Party in possession of - Failure of to
tender or produce same - Unfavourable inference of fact to be drawn against him
- Circumstances which may warrant such inference Section 149 (d) Evidence Act
JUDGMENT AND ORDER - Judgment and Proceedings of court - How prove
LAND LAW - Ownership of land - Determination of where rival claimants
have a common root of title by grants - How done - Whether claimant whose title
is later in time can maintain action against the one who first obtain title -
Relevance of the principle of nemo dat quod non habet
LAND LAW - Trespass - Claim therein - Whether legal entry can defeat
same
LAND LAW - Trespass - Plaintiff’s claim therein - Need for to be based
on possessory right to title
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Civil claims - Proof of - Whose duty - Whether a weak defence removes the burden of proof on the plaintiff
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -
Evaluation of evidence - Whether appellate court entitled to evaluate
evidence afresh after the trial court has done so
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Evaluation of evidence - Whose primary
function - Circumstances when appellate court will interfere Circumstance when
appellate court will not interfere
STATUTE - Evidence Act - Section 149(d) thereof - Party in possession
of material evidence failing to tender or produce same - Unfavourable inference
of fact to be drawn against him - Circumstance which may warrant such inference
Issues:
1.
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding
that by the evidence before him the owner of the piece of land sold same to
both appellant and respondent.
2.
Considering the evidence adduced before the trial
court, who between the parties had a better title to the land as at the time of
commencing this action in the High Court?
Facts:
The appellant as
plaintiff sued the respondent as defendant claiming damages for trespass and
injunction from further acts of trespass on plaintiff’s piece of land lying and
situate immediately behind plaintiff’s residential house on No. 24, Waziri Kolo
Street, Gamboru Liberty, Maiduguri. The appellant claimed that he bought the
land from one Baba Talba Alkali on 18/3/93 as shown on his purchase receipt
(exhibit ‘A’). The respondent on the other hand pleaded that he had title to
the land which he bought from the same Baba Talba Alkali on 9/7/91 as shown on
Local Government Alienation Permit dated 19/7/91 (exhibit ‘B’) issued to him
and the said Baba Talba Alkali.
After hearing the case, the learned trial
Judge entered judgment for the defendant on the reasoning that his title was
better in time than that of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff has
filed this appeal.
SENATOR M. A. M. ARUWA
V
MRS. W. A. ABDULKADIR
COURT OF APPEAL
( KADUNA DIVISION )
ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA (
Presided )
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE,
JCA
CA/K/76/2000
THURSDAY,
14TH JUNE, 2001
ACTION - Undefended list action - When transferred to the general cause list
ACTION -
Undefended list procedure - Affidavit of a defendant under the
undefended list action- What it must contain - Duty of court while considering
same
APPEAL - Fresh issue on appeal - Issue of
jurisdiction of trial court - How raised for the first time on appeal
APPEAL - Fresh issue on appeal - Whether can
constitute ground of appeal without leave of the Court of Appeal
LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Legal fees - Claim by
counsel therefor - Whether can be enforced through undefended list procedure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list
procedure - Action filed thereunder - When transferred to the general cause
list
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list
procedure - Affidavit of a defendant thereunder - What it must contain - Duty
of court while considering same
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list
procedure - Claim of counsel for legal fees - Absence of agreement by parties before
or after providing the legal services - Whether such claim can come under
undefended list procedure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list
procedure - Condition precedent to bringing claim thereunder
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Debt’ - Meaning of
WORDS
AND PHRASES - ‘Liquidated money demand’ - Meaning of
Issue:
Whether the lower court is right in deciding that no
defence on the merit had been disclosed in the affidavit of the appellant in
support of his notice of intention to defend the suit.
Facts:
The dispute in
this suit arose over the payment of professional or legal fees of N1.2 million
charged by the respondent for prosecuting the appellant’s case in suit No.
CA/K/EPNA/5/99. Judgment in that case was delivered in favour of the appellant.
The respondent forwarded her bill of charges for settlement, same day that
judgment was delivered. About 3 months after, the respondent sent a reminder
calling on the appellant to settle the bill within 7 days in order to forestall
legal action being instituted against him. The appellant failed to settle the
fees, the respondent therefore instituted this action in the High Court of
Kaduna State under the undefended list.
The appellant also filed his notice of
intention to defend the suit supported by an affidavit. At the conclusion of
hearing the trial court held that the affidavit of the appellant did not
disclose enough defence on merit to justify granting the appellant leave to
defend the suit. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Chindo World Wide Ltd v. Total Nig. Plc.
- ₦ 200
- Part: 115
- Publication Date: 2002-08-12
CHINDO WORLD WIDE LTD.
V
TOTAL NIGERIA PLC
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
NIKI TOBI, JCA (
Presided )
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA (
Read the Lead Judgment )
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JCA
CA/B/144/98
THURSDAY, 5TH JULY, 2001
ACTION - Counter-claim - Nature of
APPEAL - Evaluation of evidence - Findings
of fact based on the demeanour of witnesses - Whether Court of Appeal can
interfere with
BANKING - Bank teller - Proof of lodgment of
money into bank account by - Whether
conclusive proof of such lodgment
COURT - Court of Appeal - Whether can
interfere with findings of fact of trial court based on the demeanour of
witnesses
DAMAGES
- General damages - Nature of
DAMAGES - Special damages - Nature of - Need
to plead, particularise and prove
EVIDENCE
- Admissions - Whether admitted facts need proof
EVIDENCE - Bank teller - Whether a bank
teller indicating lodgment of money into a person’s account is conclusive proof
of payment into the person’s account
EVIDENCE
- Burden of proof - On whom rests - When it shifts
EVIDENCE
- Documents - Contents of - Type of evidence required to prove
EVIDENCE - Evaluation of evidence - Findings
of fact based on the demeanour of witnesses - Whether Court of Appeal can
interfere with
EVIDENCE - Extrinsic evidence - Whether
admissible to vary or contradict written agreement
EVIDENCE - Proof of lodgment of money into a
bank account by production of bank teller - Whether conclusive proof of payment
into the account
EVIDENCE - Where plaintiff fails to prove
his claim - Proper order to make
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment - Need to confine to issues formulated by
parties - Incompetence of trial court to make a case different from that of the
parties
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Where plaintiff fails
to prove his claim Proper order to make
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Admissions -
Whether admitted facts need proof
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Civil cases -
Contestation of on basis of issues as settled in the pleadings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Evaluation of
evidence - Findings of fact based on the demeanour of witnesses - Whether Court
of Appeal can interfere with
Issues:
1.
Whether exhibit ‘A’ constituted a prima facie proof that the appellant paid the sum of N1,680,000.00
to the respondent for the supply of petroleum products.
2.
Whether the learned trial court correctly placed the
onus of proving the payment of N1,680,000.00 on the appellant.
3.
Whether on the evidence before the court, the
respondent/crossappellant established its counter-claim for the sum of
N2,511,667.20.
Facts:
The
plaintiff/appellant sued the defendant/respondent/cross-appellant claiming
damages for breach of contract of specific performance. The defendant
counter-claimed for special damages based on fraud. A brief summary of the
facts gathered from the pleadings and evidence of the parties shows that
plaintiff ordered for the supply of petroleum products from the defendant, and
purportedly paid for the order in the sum of N1,680,000.00 by making a cash
deposit into defendant’s account with Afribank Plc. The alleged payment was
evidenced by bank tellers, exhibit ‘A’, brought to the defendant by plaintiff’s
agent. Defendant supplied part of the order relying on exhibit ‘A’. Thereafter,
defendant’s auditors found that exhibit ‘A’ was a forged document, and that the
plaintiff did not make the alleged payment into defendant’s account.
MRS. T. C. CHUKWUNA
V
MR. BABAWALE IFALOYE
( For himself and on behalf of the estate of
the Late Chief Ajewole Ifaloye)
COURT OF APPEAL
( ABUJA DIVISION )
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JCA ( Presided )
ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
ALBERT GBADEBO ODUYEMI, JCA
CA/A/37/99
TUESDAY,
15TH JANUARY, 2002
APPEAL - Issue for determination - Competence of - Condition precedent
- Need for to relate to at least one
ground of appeal
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Failure to frame same from grounds
of appeal - Effect of
LAND
LAW - ‘Trespass’ - Meaning of
LAND
LAW - Action in trespass - Who can maintain
LAND
LAW - Trespass - Right to claim in trespass - When abates
LAND
LAW - Trespass - Where claim for trespass fails - Whether court can still award
damages and injunction for trespass WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Trespass’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1. That based on the pleadings and the evidence adduced at trial whether the learned trial Judge came to the right conclusion in his application of the case of Adebanjo vs. Brown (1990) NWLR (Pt. 141) at 661 as it relates to waiver in trespass.
2.
That based on the findings of the learned trial Judge
that respondent was in trespass to the appellant’s land, was the learned trial
Judge right in refusing to go further and grant the reliefs of injunction and
damages.
Facts:
The appellant
herein as plaintiff at the lower court filed action against Chief Ajewole
Ifaloye (deceased) at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
claiming N3,000,000.00 being general damages for trespass and injunction
against the defendant.
The trial Judge
at the conclusion of trial and address of the parties’ counsel found, inter alia as follows:
“In the case in
issue the plaintiff found that the defendant has encroached onto her land and
the two tried to negotiate with the help of their lawyer to either pay for the
land or swap the land for the adjacent one, the plaintiff cannot therefore be
heard to be complaining over spilled milk after having waived, to her
detriment, the right to sue for trespass until much later†... The trial court
consequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that she had waived
her right to sue the defendant having condoned the defendant’s trespassing on
her land.
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment,
the plaintiff/appellant filed this appeal whereby she urged the Court of Appeal
to, inter alia, decide whether the
learned trial Judge had correctly interpreted and applied the judgment of
Agbaje JSC (as he then was) in the case of Adebanjo
vs. Brown (1990) NWLR (Pt. 141)
at 661.
MR. C. I. S.
ILOABACHIE
V
1. PROF. DOTUN PHILIPS
2. NIGERIA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
RESEARCH
3. NISER COUNCIL
COURT OF APPEAL
( IBADAN DIVISION )
MORONKEJI OMOTAYO ONALAJA, JCA ( Presided )
DAHALTU ADAMU, JCA
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/I/174/98
FRIDAY, 7TH DECEMBER, 2001.
APPEAL - Findings of fact by trial court - Attitude of appellate court
thereto
COURT - Duty of to apply rules of equity - When arises
EQUITY - Equitable maxim - ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean
hands’ - Application and essence of
EQUITY - Party approbating and reprobating - Attitude of equity thereto
ESTOPPEL - Master and servant relationship - Termination of employee’s
employment - Employee’s competence to challenge termination When employee is
estopped
ESTOPPEL - Party challenging competence of employer to terminate his
employment - When such party is estopped - Implication of party approbating and
reprobating at the same time
EVIDENCE - Onus of proof of wrongful termination of employment - On
whom lies
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - Obsolete statute - NISER Decree No. 70 of 1977 creating a governing council of NISER
- Where there exists no NISER Council - Interpretation of
LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Counsel and Senior Advocates - Responsibility of
to assist the courts in the dispensation of justice
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment - Termination thereof
- When and how can be done - When
inexpedient to do so
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment with statutory flavour
- What amounts to - Special attributes
and benefits of
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of employment with statutory flavour
- Requirement for strict adherence to
the procedure stated in the statute for termination to be valid
MASTER AND SERVANT - Employment with statutory flavour - How determined
- Duty of court to construe
MASTER AND SERVANT - NISER Council - Member of - Whether may carry out
the policies of the Institute
MASTER AND SERVANT - NISER Decree No. 70 of 1977, section 5(3) thereof
- Whether relevant in questions of discipline or termination of NISER staff
MASTER AND SERVANT - Obsolete statute - NISER Decree No. 70 of
1977 creating a governing council of
NISER - Where there exists no NISER Council - Interpretation of
MASTER AND SERVANT - Party who had taken benefits of the acts of a body
or the contents of a document turning round to question legality of same -
Whether lawfully permitted to do so
MASTER AND SERVANT - Statutory public institution - Contract of
employment of employees of - Whether automatically one with statutory flavour
MASTER AND SERVANT - Termination - Varying meanings of
MASTER AND SERVANT - Termination of
employment - When party may be said to have
acquiesced in the termination of his employment -
Party accepting salary in lieu of notice - Whether party can turn round
to challenge termination
PLEADINGS - Party failing to adduce evidence in proof of pleaded facts
Effect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Failure of party to adduce evidence in respect
of his pleading - Effect
STATUTE - Enactment - When provisions thereof said to be obsolete
STATUTE - NISER Decree No. 70 of 1977, section 5(3) thereof - Purport
of
WORDS AND PHRASES - Obsolete enactment - Meaning of WORDS AND PHRASES - Termination
- Varying meanings of
Issues:
1.
Whether the mere fact that a person is an employee of a
statutory body or organisation automatically makes his contract of employment
one with statutory flavour. What are the
determinants of contract of employment with statutory flavour and how is such
contract determined?
2.
Whether a party, who after becoming aware of the
termination of his employment collects his gratuity and continues to receive
his pension can still validly challenge the said termination.
Facts:
The plaintiff/appellant sued the
respondents jointly and severally for special and general damages for wrongful
termination of employment at the High Court of Oyo State. The appellants relied heavily on the
provisions of Decree No. 70 of 1977 in instituting the suit. He referred to the fact that the 2nd
respondent was a public statutory establishment created by the NISER Decree No.
70 of 1977 and the 3rd respondent also a statutory body set up under the decree
to manage the affairs of the former and contended that since he was appointed
by the latter under section 5(3) of the Decree, he was a public servant and his
appointment was one with statutory flavour.
Consequently, he believed his appointment could only be validly
terminated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute. It was
also the appellant’s case that even the 3rd respondent who appointed him could
not alter the tenure of his appointment without reference to the Minister of Establishment
as provided in the Decree.
At the end
of the trial, the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its
entirety. Dissatisfied with that
judgment, the appellant appealed.
DR. M. G. O. IWEKA
V
S.C.O.A. NIGERIA LIMITED
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
JUSTIN THOMPSON AKPABIO, JCA ( Presided )
EUGENE CHUKWUEMEKA UBAEZONU, JCA
SULE AREMU OLAGUNJU, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/E/32/91
THURSDAY,
20TH DECEMBER, 2001
CONTRACT - Repudiation of contract - Offer to repudiate by respondent
in the instant case - Rejection of same by the appellant - Whether still keeps
the contract between the parties alive to warrant grant of specific performance
in favour of the appellant - Okongwu vs. NNPC (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.
115) 296
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - ‘Stare decisis’ - Application of - Condition
precedent thereto
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - ‘Ratio decidendi’ - Application of - When
inappropriate
Issues:
1.
Whether the contract was kept alive following the
rejection by the plaintiff/appellant of the repudiation by the defendant/
respondent.
2.
If the answer to the above is in the positive, whether
the contract should be specifically enforced or damages in lieu of specific
performance awarded; when is the assessment of damages to be made? what is the
measure? and was the plaintiff/appellant under any obligation to mitigate the
damage?.
Facts:
The
plaintiff/appellant filed an action against the defendant/ respondent at the
Anambra State High Court, Onitsha claiming specific performance and the sum of
N750,000.00 as damages for breach of contract and or detention of the car, the
subject-matter of the contract.
In May, 1984,
the defendant/respondent agreed to supply the plaintiff/ appellant with a
Peugeot 504 GR air-conditioned Saloon Car within one month at the purchase
price of N11,850. The
defendant/respondent could not supply the agreed car up till June 1986 when it
suggested to supply a Peugeot 505 Saloon Car to the plaintiff/appellant instead
of the agreed brand with payment of additional N5,820. This was promptly
rejected by the plaintiff/appellant. By
a letter dated 25th July, 1986, the defendant/ respondent offered to refund the
plaintiff/appellant’s money already paid since it could not supply the agreed
car. This offer was equally rejected by
the plaintiff/appellant who insisted on taking the agreed brand of car.
Failure of the
defendant/respondent to eventually fulfil the obligation under the contract led
to the action at the Onitsha High
Court. At the close of trial, the trial
Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s/appellant’s claims for specific performance and
damages but was however awarded a total of N16,766.00 as special and general
damages.
Being aggrieved with the said judgment,
the plaintiff/appellant brought the appeal.
YIOLA MASKALA
V
DIMBRIWE SILLI
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CJN ( Presided )
SALIHU MODDIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC
SC.
94/1996
FRIDAY,
28TH JUNE, 2002
APPEAL - Fresh issue on
appeal - Whether leave of court is required to file and argue same on appeal -
Section 213(3) of the 1979 Constitution
APPEAL - Grounds of
appeal - Ground of law - Ground of fact - Distinction between
COURT - Area Courts - Composition of
COURT - Area Courts - Party alleging that same is not properly constituted - Duty thereon
Issues:
1.
Whether the trial Civil Area Court Shelleng was
properly constituted when it heard and determined this case. And if the answer
is in the negative, whether the decision of the Court of Appeal which restored
the said judgment did not amount to a nullity.
2.
Whether the grounds of appeal filed and argued before
the lower court did not all raise issues of mixed law and facts. And if the
answer is in the affirmative, can it be said that the leave granted
by a single Judge of the Adamawa High Court to the
respondent herein to appeal against the said judgment was valid? and if not,
did the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear and determine the said
appeal?
Facts:
The claim of the
plaintiff in this suit is ownership of a piece of farmland in possession of the
defendant for about 50 years. Plaintiff led evidence and called four witnesses
who were unable to establish the plaintiff’s claim to the land.
The trial court
found on preponderance of evidence that it was the defendant who had been on
the land for about 50 years. The court also found that nobody had seen the
appellant farming on the disputed land.
Dissatisfied
with this decision of the trial court, the plaintiff appealed to the Upper Area
Court which upheld the said decision and dismissed the appeal. On appeal to the
High Court, the High Court reviewed the evidence of witnesses at the trial
court. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the decision of Upper Area
Court.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the
Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Upper Area Court. Aggrieved the
plaintiff further appealed to the Supreme Court.
UGORJI OBI
CHRISTIAN UKAMBA
ELEBEKE MMUOMARA
SIMON OBIDIEGWU
OBIALO AHIKOBO
( For themselves and as representing
their Akokwa Community)
V
DANIEL MBIONWU
PETER UME
FIDELIS EZEANOWAI
( For themselves and on behalf of the
people of Osina Community Orlu)
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC ( Presided )
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JSC
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC
SC.14/1997
FRIDAY,
14TH JUNE, 2002
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Discretion of to order retrial - Whether Supreme Court will interfere therewith
COURT
- Appellate court - When same will order retrial
COURT - Court of Appeal - Discretion of to order retrial - Whether
Supreme Court will interfere therewith
COURT - Locus in quo - Inspection thereto - Purpose of - Whether court
is bound to record full notes of such inspection
COURT
- Locus in quo - Visit thereto - Determination of - Whether within discretion
of trial court
COURT - Locus in quo - Visit thereto - Duty of Judges thereafter not to
put a view or personal observation in place of the evidence
COURT - Visit to locus in quo - Determination of - Whether within
discretion of trial court
JUDICIARY - Judges - Duty of after visit to locus in quo not to put a
view or personal observation in place of the evidence
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Retrial - When will be ordered by appellate court
LAND LAW - Claim for declaration of boundary between two areas of
land Treating same as claim for
declaration of title to a parcel of land Effect thereof
LAND LAW - Locus in quo - Inspection thereof - Whether necessary in all
land disputes
Issues:
1.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right by holding that
the learned trial Judge in his approach to the trial misconceived the case
before him by his repeated reference to “land in dispute†as if the claim
before the court was that of declaration of title to a specific piece or parcel
of land in dispute between the parties when the claim before him was simply
that of declaration that the “ekpe†trench is the boundary between the parties.
2.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that
the learned trial Judge did not properly evaluate the evidence before him
relating to the main fact in issue; namely, whether or not the ancient “ekpeâ€
trench is the boundary between two parties.
3.
Whether the decision for a retrial of the case ordered
by the Court of Appeal is justifiable having regard to all the circumstances of
the case.
Facts:
The plaintiffs
and the defendants herein are two neighbouring communities sharing a common
boundary in the Ideato Local Government Area of Imo State.
The plaintiffs,
for themselves and on behalf of the people of Osina Community instituted an
action against the defendant also in a representative capacity for a
declaration that the “Ekpe†- an ancient trench is the boundary between the two
communities and an injunction restraining the defendants and the people of
Akokwa from crossing the said concurrent boundary and laying claim to land on
Osina side of “Ekpe ditchâ€. During
trial, the trial court paid a visit to the locus
in quo and at the conclusion of trial, the trial court dismissed the
plaintiffs’ suit.
Dissatisfied,
the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and
orders of the trial court and further directed that the suit be tried de novo before another Judge. The Court of Appeal further ordered that the
learned trial Judge must, and should visit the locus in quo in order to have a thorough approval of what is
actually in dispute between the parties.
Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal’s
decision, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
ALHAJI SHIFAWU ODE
NURAINI SANUSI AKA
RAUFU ADEKUNLE
( For themselves and for and on behalf of
Oke Branch of Salawu Family)
V
PA A. K. BALOGUN
PROF. AJIBADE ROKOSU
ALH. R. A. SALAWE
ALH. MONSURU
ALESHINLOYE
( For themselves and for and on behalf of
Three Ruling
Houses namely: OKOYA, AGBAJE and ROKOSU of
Salawa Chieftaincy Family)
LAGOS ISLAND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR
LAGOS STATE
COURT OF APPEAL
( LAGOS DIVISION )
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JCA ( Presided )
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/L/361/97
THURSDAY, 8TH JULY, 1999
CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Standing Chieftaincy Tribunal of Inquiry
Recommendations thereof crystallising into chieftaincy declaration to regulate
succession into Salawe Chieftaincy Stool -
Action instituted in High Court to pronounce against - Whether an abuse
of court process
CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - Standing Chieftaincy Tribunal of Inquiry Decision
or recommendation of - Whether a valid judgment - General nature of proceedings
of such Tribunal
COURT
- Abuse of court process - Duty of court to prevent
COURT - Declaratory relief - Exercise of jurisdiction to make - Whether
an exception to the general principle that where the constitution has declared
that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction any provision to the contrary is
null and void
COURT - Declaratory judgment - Duty of court when exercising discretion
to grant same
COURT
- Discretion - Discretion of court to make declaratory relief -
How
exercised - Limitation thereto
COURT
- Jurisdiction of to entertain a suit - What determines
COURT - Machinery of court - Duty of court to prevent improper use of
as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation
COURT - Process of court - Improper use of as a means of vexation and
oppression in litigation process- Duty of court to prevent
COURT - Tribunal - Decision or recommendation of - Whether a valid judgment
JUDGMENT
AND ORDERS - Declaratory claim - Implication of
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Declaratory judgment - Duty of court when
exercising discretion to grant
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Declaratory judgment - Nature of - When may be
granted
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Tribunal - Decision or recommendation of - Whether a valid judgment
JURISDICTION - Exercise of jurisdiction to make declaratory relief
Whether an exception to the general principle that where the constitution has
declared that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction any provision to the
contrary is null and void
JURISDICTION
- Jurisdiction of court to entertain a suit - What determines Issue:
Whether the High Court can exercise its declaratory
jurisdiction in respect of a matter already decided by the Standing Chieftaincy
Tribunal of Inquiry and will not amount to an abuse of the process of the
court.
Facts:
The appellants
and the first set of respondents made an application to the Lagos State
Government requesting it to make a chieftaincy declaration that would regulate
succession to the Salawe Chieftaincy Stool. A Chieftaincy Draft was thus
approved and registered by the government which made provision for four (4)
Ruling Houses. After services of claims and counterclaims from rival claimants
to the Salawe Chieftaincy Stool, the government referred the matter to the
Judicial Tribunal on chieftaincy matters for investigation and report. The
Judicial Tribunal recommended the revocation of the 1986 Chieftaincy
Declaration earlier promulgated on the Salawe Chieftaincy Title and concluded
by recommending only two ruling houses for the stool which apparently subsumed
or extinguished the respondents’ ruling houses. The above recommendation was
however approved by the government.
The 1st - 4th respondents as plaintiffs
filed an action at the trial court for declaratory reliefs. After the exchange
of pleadings, the 1st - 3rd appellants as 1st - 3rd defendants at the trial
court filed a preliminary objection on the ground that the action did not
disclose reasonable cause of action. At the conclusion of hearing on the
application, the trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved the
appellants therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Regd. Trustees, Holy Apostolic Church v. Ayeni
- ₦ 200
- Part: 115
- Publication Date: 2002-08-12
1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE HOLY
APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF NIGERIA
2. CHIEF ISRAEL B. ARIBISALA
3. DEACON EZEKIEL OMOLAYO ERUJEJE
4. PROPHET S. FUNSO ALUKO
5. SENIOR EVANGELIST M. O. LONGE
6. APOSTLE OLUWASOLA OLUWATOSIN
7. MRS. EBUN AYEGBUSI
V
1. REV. FOLORUNSO AYENI
2. CHIEF JOHN OLOMINU - BABA IJO
COURT OF APPEAL
( ILORIN DIVISION )
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )
PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, JCA
WALTER S. NKANU ONNOGHEN, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/IL/32/2001
MONDAY, 25TH MARCH, 2001
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Freedom of worship - Whether breached by order of
interlocutory injunction restraining feuding church members from use of church
building and property
COURT - Preservation of property in dispute - Duty of trial court
thereof
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - Freedom of worship - Whether breached by
preservation order of interlocutory injunction barring feuding church members
from using the church building and property - Need for peaceable conduct in a
place of religious worship
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Order to lock up a church
building
- When necessary as a
consequential order
INJUNCTION - Interlocutory injunction - Principles governing grant of
Discretionary power of trial court to consider application for
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Interlocutory injunction - When order to lock up
a church building is a necessary consequential order
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order of interlocutory injunction barring feuding
church members from the use of a church building - Whether in breach of freedom
of worship - Need for peaceable conduct in a place of worship
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Consequential order - When order to lock up a
church building is a necessary consequential order
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Injunction - Interlocutory injunction
Principles governing grant of - Trial court’s discretion to grant
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Order of interlocutory injunction barring
feuding church members from the use of a church building - Whether in breach of
freedom of worship - Need for peaceable conduct in a place of worship
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Preservation of property in dispute Duty of
trial courts in respect thereof
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Judgment is against the weight of evidence’ -
What is meant by
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Perverse decision’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the order of interlocutory injunction made by
the trial High Court was perverse, against the weight of evidence and
prejudicial to the appellants.
2.
Whether the order to lock up the church building
thereby preventing the parties from using same pending the determination of the
suit is an infraction of the appellants’ fundamental right of religious worship
guaranteed under the Constitution.
3.
Whether the preservation order of injunction made by
the trial court is consistent with the claims of the plaintiffs/respondents.
Facts:
The plaintiffs/respondents
commenced this action against the defendants/appellants claiming a declaration
that the synod meeting of the 1 st appellant was illegal, annulment of the
appointments made thereat; an order that the Will of the late founder of the
church is not binding on the church; an order that the defendants should not
disturb plaintiffs and other officiating members in the headquarters branch of
the church; an order on the 7th defendant/appellant to hand over church
property with her to the superintendent of the church; and, an order
restraining defendants/appellants from harassing plaintiffs/respondents and
other members of plaintiffs/ respondents’ faction.
After
the exchange of pleadings, the plaintiffs brought an application for
interlocutory injunction restraining both parties/factions from worshipping in
the headquarters branch of the church and a close down of the said church.
The
application was heard and granted. Dissatisfied, the defendants/ appellants filed
this appeal.
ALHAJA SARATU ADELEKE
V
ALHAJA MORINATU RAJI
RAIMI RAJI
SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JSC
( Presided )
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC UTHMAN MOHAMMED, JSC
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SC. 55/1996
FRIDAY, 21ST JUNE, 2002
APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Whether can take points suo motu -
Discretion thereof to take points suo motu - How to be exercised
APPEAL - Trial court - Question decided by trial court - Party seeking
to have same resolved by the appellate court - Duty of to file grounds of
appeal germane to issues properly raised thereon
COURT - Court of Appeal - Whether can take points suo motu - Discretion
thereof to take points suo motu - How to be exercised
COURT - Order of non-suit, strike out or retrial - Court making same
Need therefor to hear address of parties before making
COURT - Trial court - Question decided by trial court - Party seeking
to have same resolved by the appellate court - Duty of to file grounds of
appeal germane to issues properly raised thereon
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order of non-suit, strike out or retrial Court
making same - Need therefor to hear address of parties before making
Issue:
Whether the court below was right to have struck out the
respondents’ case.
Facts:
The
plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant for a declaration of
title to statutory right of occupancy in respect of a piece of land. At the
conclusion of trial but in the course of
closing his address, counsel for the plaintiff sought leave to amend his
pleadings by changing title of the action in relation to the 1st plaintiff by
adding “for herself and on behalf of Oyinade section of Raji Adewale family;
defence counsel opposed the application but court granted the amendment.
The trial
court thereafter found for the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the
land, he dismissed their claim for special damages and awarded general damages
for trespass committed on the land.
Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed
to the Court of Appeal against the order granting the amendment and the
judgment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that plaintiffs’
claim be struck out. Both parties were dissatisfied with the judgment and
orders of the Court of appeal, they therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ames Electrical Co. Ltd v. Fed. Airports Authority of Nig
- ₦ 200
- Part: 116
- Publication Date: 2002-08-19
AMES ELECTRICAL CO. LIMITED
V
FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF NIGERIA
COURT OF APPEAL
( ILORIN DIVISION )
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )
PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, JCA
WALTER S. NKANU ONNOGHEN, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/IL/25/2000
THURSDAY, 12TH JULY, 2001
ACTION - Pre-action notice - Non-compliance therewith - Objection
thereon - When and how raised
ACTION - Pre-action notice - Objection relating to non-service of -
When can be raised - Whether can be raised in statement of defence
APPEAL - Preliminary objection to hearing of appeal - Incorporating
objection in brief of argument - Whether proper - Need for objector to give
three days’ notice of objection to appellant and move application before
hearing of appeal - Order 3 rule 15(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1981
COURT - Pre-action
notice - Question relating to non-service of - Duty of court to examine all
processes filed to determine the jurisdiction to entertain the suit
EVIDENCE - Affidavit - Counter-affidavit - When filing of
counter-affidavit not required
EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Failure of applicant to file affidavit
in support of application or state facts relevant to application in affidavit
in support - Whether necessary for respondent to file counter-affidavit
JURISDICTION - Court lacking jurisdiction - Proper order to make by
court
JURISDICTION - Issue of jurisdiction - When can be raised - Whether can
be raised before the filing of statement of defence
JURISDICTION - Jurisdiction of court - Plaintiff’s claim as determinant
of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Demurer proceedings - Nature and purport of -
Defendant claiming that plaintiff’s action be dismissed on points of law - Effect of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -
Pre-action notice - Non-compliance therewith - Objection thereto - When
and how raised
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Service of writ of summons - Improper service
- Effect on jurisdiction of court - Need for objection relating thereto to be
raised timeously before the filing of statement of defence
- Effect of filing such objection after taking
steps in the proceedings
Issue:
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether the trial Judge was right to have dismissed the case of the plaintiff/
appellant for non-compliance with section 26(2)
of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria Decree No. 9 of 1986 which
requires pre-action notice to respondent.
Facts:
By his writ of summons in suit
No. FHC/IL/CS/30/98 and statement of claim filed on 31 /12/98, the
plaintiff/appellant claimed against the defendant/respondent, Federal Airports
Authority of Nigeria, the sum of N638,574.14 with interest.
On the 20th of July, 1999, the
defendant/respondent without filing a statement of defence filed a notice of
preliminary objection supported by an affidavit alleging non-service of
pre-action notice as required by Decree No. 9 of 1996 and improper service of
the writ of summons and the statement of claim.
At the conclusion of arguments, the trial court in a considered ruling upheld the objection and dismissed the suit. The appellant being aggrieved with the ruling has now appealed against the ruling.
In
determining the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the statement of claim
particularly its paragraphs 15 and 16 where the appellant averred that he
actually served the notice.
Brifina Ltd. v. Int’l Continental Bank Ltd
- ₦ 200
- Part: 116
- Publication Date: 2002-08-19
BRIFINA LIMITED
V
INTERNATIONAL CONTINENTAL BANK LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
EUGENE C. UBAEZONU, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Ruling )
SULE AREMU OLAGUNJU, JCA
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JCA
CA/E/15M/2001
THURSDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER, 2001.
APPEAL - Undefended List Procedure - Defendant who did not file notice
of intention to defend at the trial court thereunder - Whether could be granted
leave to argue on appeal fresh ground of appeal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure - A defendant who
intends to defend thereunder - What he is expected to do
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure - Defendant who did
not file notice of intention to defend at the trial court thereunder - Whether
could be granted leave to argue on appeal fresh ground of appeal
PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE - Undefended List Procedure -
Memorandum
of conditional appearance - Whether can be filed thereunder
Issue:
Whether the applicant can be
granted leave to argue on appeal a fresh ground of appeal having not filed a
notice of intention to defend at the trial court.
Facts:
The suit
which gave rise to the appeal in respect of which the instant application was
brought was one under the Undefended List Procedure Wherein the applicant, as
defendant, instead of filing of notice of intention to defend according to the
rules filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and judgment was given
against it. On appeal, the applicant
brought the instant motion seeking leave to be allowed to award its notice of
appeal by the addition of a further ground of appeal.
The application was opposed by the
respondent and it was the respondent’s contention that the action was filed on
the undefended list, that the applicant failed to file a notice of intention to
defend as required by the rules that granting of the application will amount to
allowing the applicant to defend through the back door.
Consolidated Breweries Plc v. Aisowieren
- ₦ 200
- Part: 116
- Publication Date: 2002-08-19
CONSOLIDATED BREWERIES PLC
DELE ADIGWE
V
JOSHUA A. AISOWIEREN
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
NIKI TOBI, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JCA
CA/B/204/98
MONDAY, 11TH JUNE, 2001
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Proliferation of - Attitude of
court to
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Where two or more issues are argued
together - Effect - Likely inference to be drawn thereby COURT - Issues for
determination - Proliferation of - Attitude of court to
COURT - Special damages - Insufficient proof of - Whether court can
remedy same
DAMAGES - General damages - Nature of
DAMAGES - Negligence - Accidented vehicle - Where held to be beyond
repairs - Inference to be drawn from the repair of - how to make a reasonable
assessment of damages for such repairs
DAMAGES - Special
damages - How to plead and prove - Need to allege with particularity - Effect
of failure to particularise - Rationale for particularising
DAMAGES - Special damages - Need to prove strictly - Whether court can
remedy insufficient proof of
DOCUMENT - Where vital to a case - Need to plead same
EVIDENCE - Documentary evidence - Where vital to a case - Need to plead
same - Evidential nature of documents
EVIDENCE - Inconsistent statements - Effect of - How to regard a
witness who makes inconsistent statements
EVIDENCE - Interested person - Statements made by when proceedings are
pending or anticipated - How construed - Section 91(3) of the Evidence Act,
1990
EVIDENCE - ‘Interested’ within the meaning of section 91(3) of the
Evidence Act, 1990 - Definition of
EVIDENCE - Negligence - Accidented vehicle - Where held to be beyond
repairs - Inference to be drawn from the repair of - How to make a reasonable
assessment of damages for such repairs
EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Evidence not borne out from pleadings - Effect - Need for parties to be bound by their pleadings
EVIDENCE - Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act - How applied
EVIDENCE - Unchallenged evidence - The general rule on - Exceptions
thereto
EVIDENCE - Vehicle Inspection Officer (VIO) - Nature of the evidence of
- Whether an expert witness
EVIDENCE - Witness - How to regard a witness who makes inconsistent
statements in court - Effect of inconsistent statements of a witness
NEGLIGENCE - Admission of negligence - Proof of special damages arising
from negligence - Difference between
PLEADINGS - Pleadings - Evidence not borne out from pleadings - Effect
- Need for parties to be bound by their
pleadings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interested person - Statements made by when
proceedings are pending or anticipated - How construed Section 91(3) of the
Evidence Act, 1990
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Issues - Where two or more are argued together
- Effect - Likely inference to be drawn thereby - Attitude of court to
proliferation of issues
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Motion - Effect of filing without moving
it
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Pleadings - Evidence not borne out from - Effect - Need for parties to be bound by
their pleadings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Unchallenged evidence - The general rule on -
Exceptions thereto
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Witness - How to regard a witness who make
inconsistent statements in court -
Effect of inconsistent statements of a witness
STATUTE - Evidence Act, 1990,
section 149(d) - How applied
STATUTE - Evidence Act, Section
91(3) - How construed - Scope of
TORT - Negligence - Accidented
vehicle - Where held to be beyond repairs -
Inference to be drawn from the repair of - How to make a reasonable
assessment of damages for such repairs
TORT - Vehicle Inspection Officer (VIO) - Nature of the evidence of - Whether an expert witness
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Interested’ within the meaning of section
91(3) of the Evidence Act,
1990 - Meaning of
Issues:
1.
Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated and
appraised the evidence before him in arriving at his conclusions and final
judgment.
2.
Whether the reliefs sought were rightly granted in the
circumstances of this case.
3.
Whether the award of N30,000.00 as general damages by
the trial Judge can rightly be construed as double compensation.
4.
What is the legal effect of a clear abandonment of
pleadings and oral evidence by the appellants as in this case?
Facts:
The plaintiff/respondent sued the
defendants/appellants claiming special and general damages for injuries and
losses following from a motor accident involving the vehicles of the parties.
The defendants admitted liability for negligence and offered no evidence in
rebuttal of the plaintiff’s case. The defendants however contended at the trial
court that despite their concession on the issue of negligence the plaintiff
was not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The learned trial Judge entered
judgment in favour of the plaintiff and awarded various sums of money as special
and general damages. Dissatisfied, the defendants brought this appeal. The
Court of Appeal considered some relevant provisions of the Evidence Act,
particularly section 91(3) which provides as follows:
“Nothing in this section shall render admissible as
evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings
were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the
statement might tend to establish.â€
Kolo v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc.
- ₦ 200
- Part: 116
- Publication Date: 2002-08-19
HARUNA BAKO KOLO
V
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JCA ( Presided )
ISA ABUBAKAR MANGAJI, JCA
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/J/24/2000
THURSDAY,
11TH APRIL, 2002
ACTION - Action for
recovery of debt - Cause of action therein - When same accrues
ACTION - Cause of action - Accrual of - What
amounts to
ACTION - Cause of
action - When same accrued - Determination of What to consider first
ACTION - Statute-barred
action - How to determine - When time begins to run
APPEAL - Misdirection
committed by lower court - Attitude of appellate court thereto
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION - Debt - When becomes
repayable
COURT - Misdirection
committed by lower court - Attitude of appellate court thereto
EVIDENCE - Evidence of
opposing party - Right of the other party to rely thereon or, admit same or
adduce his own evidence
EVIDENCE - Letter marked ‘without prejudice’
- Inadmissibility of LIMITATION LAW - Limitation period - How determined -
Whether can be done without taking oral evidence
LIMITATION OF ACTION -
Statute-barred action - How to determine When time begins to run
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Misdirection
committed by lower court
-
Attitude of appellate court thereto
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Cause of action’ -
Meaning of
Issue:
Whether the decision of the court is sustainable despite
reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Facts:
This appeal
emanated from the ruling of Dakyen J. of the High Court of Justice Plateau
State sitting in Jos delivered on 25/03/98 in Suit No. PLD/J7/1997 filed under
the undefended list. In the suit, the respondent as plaintiff claimed from the
appellant as defendant the sum of N85,637.63 ( eighty five thousand, six
hundred and thirty seven naira sixty three kobo ) arising from credit facility
granted the appellant by the respondent, a bank carrying on banking business in
Nigeria. The respondent also claimed interest on said sum.
The appellant
filed a notice of intention to defend the action. The court then transferred
the matter to the general cause list, after fully considering same.
Parties filed
and exchanged pleadings. The appellant also filed a notice of preliminary
objection to the suit with an affidavit in support. The objection was to the
effect that the action was statute-barred. The respondent did not file a
counter-affidavit rather the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
preliminary objection on points of law and relied on the facts deposed to in
the affidavit of the appellant in support of his preliminary objection to the
suit.
The trial court,
after listening to the argument of counsel from both sides, in the said ruling
of 25/3/98, overruled the objection.
The appellant being dissatisfied with the
ruling, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Obende
- ₦ 200
- Part: 116
- Publication Date: 2002-08-19
NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
( Provisional Liquidator of Progress Bank of
Nig. Plc )
V
MR.
E. A. OBENDE
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JCA ( Presided )
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JCA
OLUDADE OLADAPO OBADINA, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
CA/J/111/96
MONDAY,
11TH MARCH, 2002
BANKING - Company operating banking business - Banking licence of
Revocation of same - Whether means the death of the company
BANKING - Gross misconduct in banking industry - What amounts thereto
- Whether includes act of granting
unauthorised overdrafts and loans to customers contrary to specific instruction
COMPANY LAW - Company operating banking
business - Banking licence of - Revocation of same - Whether means the death of
the company
COMPANY LAW - Liquidation of company - When presumed - Whether
appointment of provisional liquidator terminates the life of the company -
Section 478(4), Company and Allied Matters Act
COMPANY LAW - Liquidator - Power of - Whether same covers power to bring
and defend action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the
company - Need for court’s sanction to so act
CONTRACT - Contract of service - Where written - Right and obligation
of parties thereunder - What determines - Bindingness of the provisions or
terms thereof on parties - Essence of the terms stipulated or agreed upon
therein
COURT - Damages awarded by trial court - Whether appellate court is
empowered to re-assess same
COURT - Trial court - Damages awarded thereby - When same will be
interfered with by the appellate court
DAMAGES - Damages awarded by trial court - When appellate court will
interfere therewith
DAMAGES - Damages awarded by trial court - Whether appellate court is
empowered to re-assess same
DAMAGES - Damages in a claim for wrongful dismissal - Basis for
assessment of
ESTOPPEL - Misconduct condoned by employer - Whether employer will be
estopped from dismissing his employee therefor
FAIR HEARING - Audi alteram partem - When requirement therefor is deem
satisfied - Whether include opportunity to defend in response to a query which
was refused
LABOUR
LAW - ‘Gross misconduct’ - Meaning of
LABOUR LAW - Collective agreement - Enforceability of - Whether
negotiation between the parties required
LABOUR LAW - Termination of employment - Wrongful termination - Where
employee who is entitled to one month’s notice or salary in lieu is wrongfully
terminated - Remedy available thereto - Whether include other legitimate
entitlements due to him
LITIGANT
- Litigant’s death - Effect of on his case
MASTER AND SERVANT - Contract of service - Where written - Right and
obligation of parties thereunder - What determines - Bindingness of the
provisions or terms thereof on parties - Essence of the terms stipulated or
agreed upon therein
MASTER AND SERVANT - Dismissal - Damages in a claim for wrongful
dismissal - Basis for assessment of
MASTER AND SERVANT - Dismissal - Employee
dismissed for breach of contract of employment - Whether can sue for wages for
period he did not work - Remedy available therefor
MASTER AND SERVANT - Dismissal - Summary dismissal - When an employee
can be summarily dismissed
MASTER AND SERVANT - Dismissal - Wrongful dismissal - Employee
complaining of - What same must prove
MASTER AND SERVANT - Misconduct condoned by employer - Whether employer
will be estopped from dismissing his employee therefor
MASTER AND SERVANT - Termination of employment - Power of employer to
terminate employment of employee in a contract of employment Whether same can
be exercised at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all - Whether
employer’s motive is a relevant factor
MASTER
AND SERVANT - Termination of employment - Where master or servant brings
master/servant relationship to an end - Whether specific performance of
contract of service will be ordered - Where employment is specifically
protected by statute - Whether employee unlawfully dismissed will be reinstated
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Gross misconduct’ - Meaning of
Issues:
1(a) Whether
the respondent was liable for summary dismissal despite his earlier recall to
duty.
(b) Whether
the finding by the lower court that the summary dismissal of the respondent
from the employment of the appellant was null, void and of no effect was proper
in law.
2(a) Whether the appellant is liable to the
respondent in damages.
(b) Was the award of the sums by the
lower court in favour of the respondent proper in law?
Facts:
The respondent,
as plaintiff filed an action at the High Court of Plateau State against the
appellant, as defendant claiming declaratory relief, injunction and an order to
pay his salary and benefits he would have earned had his employment lasted till
pension time.
In 1989, the
Inspection/Audit Department discovered some fraudulent act of the respondent
and other collaborators totalling N2,856,008.00 resulting from drafts they
issued without approval of the appellant Head Office. The plaintiff/respondent was promptly
suspended from duties and made to receive half of his basic salary.
On 17/3/1990,
the plaintiff/respondent was recalled and reassigned to recover in full, the
unauthorised overdrafts in question. On
23rd/10/ 1990, the plaintiff/respondent was issued with query and was sent on
suspension again on 10th December. On
6th July, 1992, he was recalled from suspension and reassigned to another duties. The balance of his salary and other
entitlement were calculated and paid to him.
Unceremoniously, on the 4/5/1993, the plaintiff/respondent was served
with a letter of summary dismissal - exhibit ‘A’, thereby leading to the action
at the Plateau High Court.
At the
conclusion of trial, the trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent by “directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff all
the amount of salary and other benefits/entitlement which he would have earned
had his employment lasted till pension timeâ€.
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment,
the appellant brought this appeal.