THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH V PRACTITIONERS OF NIGERIA
May 30, 2025DR.OLUSEGUN AGAGU -VS MR.AKIN ESANMORE &4ORS
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 51761
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Tue Jan 8, 2008
Suit Number: CA/A/80/M/05
CORAM
PARTIES
ALHAJI SAIDU YAYA KASIMU APPELLANTS
NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant herein was the Plaintiff at the Federal High Court, Abuja where he sued the Defendant/Respondent by way of originating summons for a declaration that the Plaintiff/Appellant was on leave of absence from his employment with the Defendant/Respondent between April 1991 and August 2001, when he was appointed as the Managing Director of the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank Limited by the Federal Government of Nigeria, a declaration that after the completion or cessation of his leave of absence and assignment as the Managing Director of the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank Limited in 1991, the Plaintiff/Appellant’s employment with the Defendant/Respondent continued and the Plaintiff/Appellant was entitled to return thereto, a declaration that the Plaintiff/Appellant was entitled to retire from his employment with the Defendant/Respondent and that his notice of retirement dated 18th September 2001 was valid to effect his retirement from the Defendant/Respondent and a declaration compelling the Defendant/Respondent to pay all the Plaintiff/Appellants retirement benefits. The Defendant/Respondent by a motion applied for an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction for failure of the Plaintiff/Appellant to adopt proper procedure for initiating the action and failing to fulfill some conditions precedent to filing his action. The application was dismissed by the trial court. Dissatisfied the Plaintiff/Appellant has appealed to this court
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether considering the facts arguments and documentary evidence in support of this case, the court was wrong in law and equity to decide that Respondent pay only for the period Appellant physically worked for her considering that Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) was not her subsidiary or even party to the case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AWARD OF DAMAGES – CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD WARRANT AN INTERFERENCE BY THE COURT OF APPEAL WITH AN AWARD OF DAMAGES BY THE TRIAL COURT
“The Court of Appeal will not interfere with an award of damages by a trial court merely because it is inclined to award a different amount. An appellate court would only intervene where there is clearly a very high or a very low estimate and same is perverse or appears to have been arrived at on wrong principle. Mutual Aids Society Ltd v. Akerele (1966) NMLR 257; Allied bank v. Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (pt. 509) 374.”
COURT OF APPEAL – DUTIES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.
“A Court of Appeal is not per se a fact finding court. It is essentially a court of review. Therefore, perception of evidence is the primary and exclusive function of a trial court and an appellate court must not veer into that realm. However, when the issue is that of evaluation of evidence and error is manifest in the exercise so conducted by the trial court, then an appellate court is on the same level with a trial court. The Court of Appeal can correct such error. Sode v. L.S.C.P.C. (2000) 7 NWLR(pt. 663) 152.”
COURT – DUTY OF THE COURT AS REGARDS EVIDENCE
“It is not the duty of a court to look for or provide evidence for any of the parties before it; its duty is mainly that of an umpire holding evenly the scale of justice between the parties. It is consequently erroneous for an appellate court to make use of materials not given in evidence to come to its decision. Ogbu v. Ani (1994) 7 NWLR(pt. 355) 128 at 148.”
POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL – LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO FRESH APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE.
“The Court of Appeal would be mistaken as to the limits of its power and duty when it embarks on a fresh appraisal of the evidence. This is so because it has not the advantage of seeing and listening to the witnesses but relied only on the cold sullen print of the records before it. Akpan v. Utin (1996) 6 SCNJ 244 at 267- 268.”
POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL – EXTENT OF THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
“By virtue of section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap 75 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and order 3 rule 23 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court of Appeal is vested with powers to make all such order as the trial court could have made and generally to called for the intervention or interference by this court. I refer to the following cases: Ogbu v. Ani (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 355) 128 at 148; Akpan v. Utin (1996) 76 SCNJ 244 at 267 – 268; Ovenseri v. Osagiede (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 572) 1 at 12; Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) NSCC 28; Pascutto v. Adecentro (Nig.) Ltd (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 529) 467; Oladunjoye v. Akinterinwa (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 92.”
ORDER AGAINST A NON -PARTY TO A SUIT –EFFECT OF AN ORDER MADE AGAINST A NON PARTY TO A SUIT
“It cannot be lost sight of that it is an act in futility and therefore a nullity to make an order affecting a person who is not a party before that court as was done in this case when in making the orders in the course of the judgment the learned trial Judge made the order of payment of part of the benefit by NIDB, a stranger to the proceeding. I refer to the case of Attorney-General Lagos State v. Attorney-General Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 1.”
JUDGE – ROLE OF THE JUDGE
“It needs no saying that a Judge as an impartial arbiter must leave the parties to conduct their contest within the ambit framed by them. See Nkwocha v. Ofurum (2002) 5 NWLR (pt. 761) 506 at 529.”
WAIVER – DEFINITION OF WAIVER
“A waiver has been defined as an abandonment of a right and showing by word or conduct not to insist on the right. See African Petroleum Ltd v. Owodunni (1991) 8 NWLR(pt. 210) 391 at 416.”
PARTY TO AN ACTION – WHETHER A PARTY CAN RESILE FROM AN IRREGULAR PROCEDURE WHICH HE HAS ACQUIESCED TO.
“It has been held again and again that a party cannot resile from an irregular procedure to which he had acquiesced to. See Ansa v. Cross Lines Ltd (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 946) 645 at 668.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Act|Court of Appeal Rules|
