PURPLE PINE GLOBAL CONCEPT LTD V. MUSA IZGE
March 26, 2025HON. SANI SHEHU MOHAMMED V. HON. SHU’AIBU AUDU
March 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 76254 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT GOMBE
Tue May 24, 2022
Suit Number: CA/G/7/2022
CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
MALLAM MOHAMMED GONIMI
APPELLANTS
NASIRU ALI SURUNDI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, as Claimant before the High Court of Justice Borno State, filed an action against the Respondent, as Defendant, seeking a declaration of title to land, possession, perpetual injunction and costs.
In response, the Respondent filed a Memorandum of appearance, Statement of defence and a Motion on notice wherein he sought an order dismissing the suit, contending that the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Written addresses were filed, exchanged and adopted. After a consideration of the arguments in the Counsel’s written addresses, the lower Court delivered its ruling dismissing the Appellant’s suit. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant, with the leave of this Court, filed his Notice and Grounds of Appeal, wherein he seeks to set aside the decision of the High Court and to remit the case to another Court of competent jurisdiction.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
2. Whether or not the lower Court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s suit on the ground that when an action is withdrawn by the owner, it is no more a subject of litigation
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASE LAW – PREREQUISITE FOR CITING A CASE AS AN AUTHORITY
“The law is trite that a case is only an authority for what it decides, and nothing more. Thus, a case cited as an authority must be considered and utilized in light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. See Anyakorah V PDP (2022) LPELR-12, D, per Muhammad, JSC; Igwe V State (2021) LPELR-55336(SC) 24-25, F-B, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC; Western Steel Workers Ltd V Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nig. (1897) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284”. PER J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A
JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE – CONDITION FOR WHICH A DECISION CAN BE USED AS A PRECEDENCE IN ANOTHER CASE
“Oputa JSC, the Philosopher Jurist, brilliantly expressed the law this way in Fawehinmi V NBA (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558, 650:
“It is good to call the Court’s attention to its pronouncements in a previous case. Under our system (which we inherited from England and Common Law) the formulation of general principles had not preceded decisions. Our case law is the law of the practitioner rather than the law of the philosopher. Decisions have drawn their inspiration and their strength from the very facts which framed the issue for decision. Once made, these decisions control future judgments of Courts in like or similar cases. The facts of two cases must be either the same or at least similar before the decision in one can be used, and even there as a guide to the decision in another case. What the former decision establishes is only a principle not a rule. Rules operate in all or nothing dimension. Principles do not. They merely form a principium, a starting point. Where one ultimately lands will then depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand.”
Again, in Adegoke Motors Ltd V Adesanya (1989) 5 SC 92, 100, Oputa JSC stated:
“It also appeared in rather bold relief that there is now a tendency among our lawyers, and sometimes among some of our Judges, to consider pronouncements made by Justices of the Supreme Court in unnecessary isolation from the facts and surrounding circumstances of those particular cases in which those pronouncements were made. I think it ought to be obvious by now, that it is the facts and circumstances of any given case that frame the issues for decision in that particular case. Pronouncements of our Justices whether they are rationes decidendi or obiter dicta must therefore be inextricably and intimately related to the facts of the given case. Citing those pronouncements without relating them to the facts that induced them will be citing them out of their proper context for, without known facts, it is impossible to know the law on those facts… Court’s decisions and pronouncements derive their strength, their persuasive potency, their inspiration and therefore their value as precedent from the facts of the case as pleaded and presented.”
In the light of these decisions, the principles laid down in the cases cited by the lower Court will be applicable to the instant case only where the accented facts of this matter are the same as the facts that induced the decision in those cases, due regard being had to the statutes and the Rules of Court governing the different Courts. Also, since, facts are the arrowhead and fountainhead of the law, the decision in a case is intricately related to the facts that induced that decision. PER J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A
DISCONTINUANCE OF ACTION – PRE-CONDITION FOR RE-FILING A SUIT THAT HAS BE WITHDRAWN AND/OR DISCONTINUED
“Order 29 Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules state as follows –
“4. Subject to any terms imposed by the court in granting leave under Rule 3 of the same order, the fact that a party has discontinued an action or withdrawn a particular claim made by him therein shall not be a defence to a subsequent action for the same.”
“5. Where a party has discontinued an action or counter claim or withdrawn any particular claim made by him therein, and he is liable to pay costs to any other party of the action or counter-claim or costs occasioned to any other party by the claim withdrawn, then if, before payment of those costs, he subsequently brings an action for or substantially the same cause of action, the Court may order the proceedings in that action to be stayed until those costs are paid.”
By these rules, the only pre-condition for re-filing a suit that has be withdrawn and/or discontinued, is the payment of costs awarded against the party, if any. PER J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012
Court of Appeal Rules, 2021
