ALHAJI UMAR ADAMU SARANYI v. ALHAJI MARAFA JIBRILLA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ALHAJI UMAR ADAMU SARANYI v. ALHAJI MARAFA JIBRILLA

PETER DA’APE & ANOR V. IBRAHIM MUSA & ORS
April 3, 2025
ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (AMCON) V. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (TARABA STATE CHAPTER)
April 3, 2025
PETER DA’APE & ANOR V. IBRAHIM MUSA & ORS
April 3, 2025
ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (AMCON) V. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (TARABA STATE CHAPTER)
April 3, 2025
Show all

ALHAJI UMAR ADAMU SARANYI v. ALHAJI MARAFA JIBRILLA

Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 61072

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT YOLA

Tue Nov 5, 2019

Suit Number: CA/YL/124/2017

CORAM



PARTIES


ALHAJI UMAR ADAMU SARANYI APPELLANTS


ALHAJI MARAFA JIBRILLA RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant claimed ownership of a piece of land against the Respondent before the Area Court. Each party claimed that his grandfather first cleared the land. That the father of each party inherited the land from his grandfather and each of the parties inherited from his father. The Area Court visited the locus in quo after hearing evidence of three witnesses called by the Respondent and five witnesses called by the Appellant. At the locus three out of five witnesses called by the Appellant could not identify the land in dispute. The trial Area Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. This led to the appeal by the Appellant to the Upper Area Court Mubi, which dismissed his appeal. His appeal to the High Court (the Court below) was also dismissed hence this appeal. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal.


HELD


Preliminary Objection Upheld, Appeal Dismissed


ISSUES


Whether the learned High Court Judge was right to have dismissed the Appellant’s Appeal and affirmed the Judgment of the trial Fali Area Court upon consideration of the whole record before him?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – RATIONALE FOR DETERMINING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FIRST


“I am enjoined to turn first to the preliminary objection of the Respondent because where a preliminary objection is raised as to the competence of an appeal, the preliminary objection has to be determined first. See the decision of this Court in Abiola vs. Olawoye (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 996) 1.”


APPEAL – WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL FILED OUT OF TIME AND WITHOUT LEAVE


“Order 47 Rules 1 and 29 of the Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2013 provides as follows:
“Rule 1. Every appeal shall be brought by Notice of Appeal which shall be filed in the lower Court within 30 days of the decision appealed from and served on all other parties affected by the appeal.
Rule 29.The Court may, if it thinks fit enlarge any period of time prescribed by this Order.”
It is settled law that an appeal which is filed out of time and without leave to extend the time within which to file a notice of appeal is incompetent and to embark on hearing such appeal is a waste of time. An appellate Court would lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal which was filed out of time and in which the Appellant took no step to have the time prescribed by the Rules of Court extended. See INEC vs. Nwosu (2018) LPELR-44019 CA and Petgas Resources Limited vs. Louis Mbanefo (2017) LPELR-42760 SC.”


JURISDICTION OF COURT – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN A MATTER WHERE THE LOWER COURT LACKS JURISDICTION


“An appellate Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in a matter once the lower Court or the Court below is without jurisdiction. See Ehuwa vs. Ondo State (2006) 12 SCNJ 259 at 269.”


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS – DUTY ON APPELLATE COURTS TO CONSIDER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL COURT


“In attacking the proceedings and judgment of the trial Area Court it behoves on learned Counsel to bear in mind that appellate Courts are enjoined to always treat the proceedings of these Courts with caution and allow for great latitude. Appellate Courts are to consider the substance of the proceedings of the Area Court liberally and this is done by reading the record to understand what the proceedings were all about so as to determine whether substantial justice has been done to the parties within the procedure permitted by such Courts. Decisions in such Courts are to be respected provided that nothing is done therein which is contrary to the requirements of the law or to the principles of natural justice. See Ikpang vs. Edoho (1978) 2 LRN 29, Onwuama vs. Ezeokoli (2002) LPELR-2712 SC page 10 – 11, Garuba vs. Yahaya (2007) LPELR-1311 SC page 11 – 12 and Ikyereve vs. Tyo (2007) LPELR-1287 CA.”


CASES CITED


Not Available


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2013 Area Courts law


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT


Comments are closed.