ALH. SHEHU ARDO ADAMU & ORS v. ALH.(DR.) SHEHU AUDU BAJU II & ORS

(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 71171

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT YOLA

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Suite Number: CA/YL/159/19

CORAM

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR

ALH. SHEHU ARDO ADAMU || ALH. (DR.) SHEHU AUDU BAJU II

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants before the High Court of Taraba State commenced this suit by a writ of summons wherein they jointly claimed against the Respondents declaratory reliefs, injunctive reliefs, Orders, Cost of Litigation, amongst other ancillary reliefs. At the end of the trial, the Court dismissed all the claims of the Appellants against the Respondents. The Appellants dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, has appealed against same to the Court of Appeal vide their Notice of Appeal, containing three Grounds of Appeal. The 3rd and 4th Respondents in reaction filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the ground that all the issues distilled by the Appellants are incompetent, as well as their brief of argument. It was submitted that proliferation of issues for determination in an appeal is not allowed.

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

HELD

Appeal Struck Out

Issues Of Determination:

Not Available

RATIONES

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – NEED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, WHERE RAISED BY A PARTY, BEFORE THE SUBSTANTIAL MATTER

“Where a preliminary objection has been raised challenging the competence of the appeal or case, whatever the case may be, it has to be looked into and resolved first before going into the main appeal if need be, depending on the outcome of the preliminary objection, which would have the effect of terminating the appeal if it succeeds. I will therefore first look into the viability or otherwise of the preliminary objection. See FBN PLC vs. T.S.A. Industries Ltd. (2010) LPELR – 1283 (SC) P. 13, Paras. B-E, Durowaiye vs. UBN (PLC.) (2014) LPELR – 24309 (CA) PP. 13 – 14, PARAS. E-A and summed up in the Apex Court in Okorocha vs. Uba Bank & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 45122 (SC) P. 13, PARAS. E-F, where his lordship Sanusi, JSC held thus: “It is settled law, that Preliminary Objection where raised by a party, should firstly be determined before determining the substantive appeal if the need to do so arises.” See, also All States Trust Bank Ltd. vs. King Davidson Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) LPELR – 10631 (CA) P.5, PARAS. B-C and Daramola vs. Nigeria Police (Cid), Idimu Police Division & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46503 (CA) PP. 12 – 13, Paras. E-A. –

STATUS(ES) REFERRED TO

Not Available|

COUNSELS

Ruth Gbaa Esq. holding the brief of Rodney Adzuanaga for the Appellants.|E. B. Kizito Esq. for the 3rd and 4th Respondents.|1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Respondents served but absent.|

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

legaladmin