BUBA ARDO YUGUDA & ANOR V BABANGIDA MIJINYAWA & ANOR
April 3, 2025MALLAM NASIRU AUDU BABA V TARABA STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 03131
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun Dec 8, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/05/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
ABUBAKAR USMAN APPELLANTS
HABILA MATHIAS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted an action against the Defendant/Respondent at the Area Court Mayo Belwa in Adamawa State, claiming title to the land in dispute. The trial Area Court entered judgment in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the Defendant/Respondent appealed to the Upper Area Court No.3, Sitting in Yola, where his appeal was dismissed. The Defendant/Respondent then appealed to the High Court where his appeal was allowed and the decisions of both the Upper Area Court and the trial Area Court were set aside. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Plaintiff/Appellant have appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
Whether the learned Appellant (sic) High Court Judge wrongly overruled the judgment of the Learned Upper Area Court Judge that upheld the admission of Exhibits ‘A’ & ‘B’ by the Area Court in its judgment in favour of the Appellant at the trial Area Court (Grounds 1 and 2). Whether the learned Appellate High Court Judge properly overturned the concurrent findings of fact of two lower Courts and whether in doing so, he was grounded by established principles of law on overturning of concurrent findings of fact by appellate Courts (sic) (Ground 3). Whether the High Court Judge acted within his powers by confirming title to the land in dispute to the Respondent when the respondent did not counter-claim at the Court of trial (Ground 4).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- STATUS OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION NOT LINKED TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL
“And the law is that if an issue is not related to any ground of appeal, then it is irrelevant and goes to no issue. Therefore any argument in the brief in support of such issue will be discountenanced by the Court. See the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ibator vs. Barakuro (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 475, Momodu vs. Momoh (1991) 1 NWLR 1 (Pt. 169) 608, J.C. Ltd vs. Ezenwa (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) 391 at 399, Shitta-Bey vs. A.G. Federation (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392 and Amadi vs. NNPC (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 66 at 72.”
RES JUDICATA – MEANING OF RES JUDICATA
“Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition defines res judicata as (1) An issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision. (2) An affirmative defence barring the same parties from litigating a second lawsuit on the same claim arising from the same transactions that could have been but was not raised in the first suit. The three essential elements are (a) An earlier decision on the issue, (b) A final judgment on the merits, and (c) The involvement of the same parties or parties in privity with the original parties. The same dictionary defines issue/collateral estoppel as the binding effect of a judgment as to matters actually litigated and determined in one action on later controversies between the parties involving a different claim from that on which the original judgment was based.”
COUNTER CLAIM – NATURE OF A COUNTER CLAIM
“A counterclaim is a separate and independent action. However, a defendant for convenience and speed may join it with his defence. See the decisions of the Supreme Court in Usman vs. Garke (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 261 and Ogbonna vs. A. G. Imo State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 647.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Area Courts Law applicable to Adamawa State
