OLUWALOGBON MOTORS & ANOR VS NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
April 11, 2025DONAL TERSER KPILAH v. DORCAS OGBONNAIYA JOHN NGWU
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 85303
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT JALINGO
Mon May 7, 2018
Suit Number: CA/YL/405M/2010
CORAM
TASLIM OLAWALE ELIAS
AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE
FATAYI-WILLIAMS
TASLIM OLAWALE ELIAS
AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE
FATAYI-WILLIAMS
TASLIM OLAWALE ELIAS
FATAYI-WILLIAMS
AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE
PARTIES
ALHAJI ABDULGANIYU AJAGBE APPELLANTS
HON. ALFA BELEL RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Honourable Judge of the High Court of Justice, Adamawa State, Yola, delivered judgment in the substantive suit wherein it dismissed the Respondent’s counter claim for damages and trespass in its entirety. The Honourable Judge thereafter summoned parties to his chambers for the interpretation of the court’s judgment and subsequently made an order inviting the parties, counsel, court and the Surveyor General, Adamawa State for purposes of visiting the locus in quo to identify the land of the parties. Upon the refusal of the trial judge to hear the Appellant’s application urging him to set aside the order he made on the 26th of May, 2017 wherein the Surveyor General of Adamawa State was ordered to appear in court, thereby impeaching the Appellant’s right to fair hearing, he filed the instant appeal contending that the trial judge lacks the jurisdiction to embark on the process of interpreting the Judgment.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to interpret its Judgment (Distilled from grounds one and two). Whether the trial court upon delivering of its Judgment in the case has not become functus officio and therefore lack the requisite jurisdiction to make the order it made on 26th May, 2017. (Distilled from grounds one, three and four). Whether by virtue of the Judgment of the trial court, the Respondent still has right, interest and or title over the land purportedly covered by Right of Occupancy No. ADS/8695. (Distilled from ground one).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ERROR IN JUDGMENT – WHETHER THE EXTENT AND SCOPE OF THE EXERCISE OF POWER OF COURT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR, ACCIDENTAL SLIPS OR OMISSIONS SHOULD BE USED AS AN EXCUSE TO REVIEW, REVERSE OR REHEAR THE CASE
“the law is trite that where there had been an error or omission by a court on matters of law, the court would not have the jurisdiction to correct such errors or omissions even though apparent on the face of the Judgment or order. In other words, the extent and scope of the exercise of power of court to correct clerical error, accidental slips or omissions should not be used as an excuse to review, reverse or rehear the case afresh as was done by the trial court. See Race Auto Supply Co. Ltd V. Akib (Supra) Page 492 Paragraphs D-G. Federal Polytechnic Idah V. Onoja (2013) AFWLR (Part 667)745 at 748; F.B.N. PLC V. T.S.A. Industries Ltd. (2010) AFWLR (Part 537) 633 at 641”.
JUDGMENT OF COURT – WHETHER A TRIAL JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION AFTER THE DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT TO INVITE PARTIES TO INTERPRETE THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THEM
“I agree entirely with the submissions of learned Appellant’s Counsel that the trial Judge has no Jurisdiction after delivery of the Judgment he delivered on 19th September, 2014 to invite parties in order to interpret the Judgment to them. See Mbani V. Bosi (2006) AFWLR (Part 323) 1615 at 1617 Paragraphs E-F; Jibo V. Gambo (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A; Atanda V. Iliasu (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A”.
COURT
“The moment a court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and procedure laid down for it, it is no longer a regular court but a kangaroo court. See Edu V. Odan Community (1980) 8-11 SC 103 at 127. When the court below embarked on the procedure complained of in this appeal, it undoubtedly was sitting as a kangaroo court. The court below knew that after it had delivered judgment in 2014, it had become functus officio”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None|
