Legalpedia Citation: (2015-07) Legalpedia 65118 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Fri Jul 10, 2015

Suit Number: CA/J/160/2013

CORAM

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI JCA

PARTIES

ALI WAKILI & ANOR

APPELLANTS

MALAM BUBA & ANOR

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

JURISDICTION, JUDGMENT, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court sitting in Gombe. The underlying facts leading to the Application filed or brought before the Gombe State High Court can be traced to the Judgment which Respondents herein had obtained against Wakili Malko at the High Court of Bauchi State in Suit No. BA/87A/85 in respect of a farmland. Wakili Malko did not vacate the land before the creation of Gombe State and so he continued to occupy and utilize the land up to the time of his death. Upon his death his children who are the Appellants naturally stepped in to inherit the land left behind by their father, Wakili Malko and thus they refused to vacate the land for the Respondents. This refusal led to the application being filed by the Respondents at the High Court of Gombe State in terms of the Motion on Notice NO. GM/108A/2010, the High Court granted the reliefs/prayers of the Respondents. The dissatisfaction of the Appellants from the Ruling or Judgment gave rise to this Appeal to this instant Court.

HELD

Motion on Notice dismissed.

ISSUES

1.Whether or not the Lower Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine suit GM/108M/2010 which was filed in 2010 after the death of Wakili Malko (distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3).

2. Whether the Lower Court was right when it refused to decide on and give effect to the High Court’s decisions in Suit No. GM/47/98 of 3/6/1998 and Suit No. BA/189/91 of 4/3/2002 (Distilled from Ground 4).

3.Whether or not the unsigned proceedings of the Lower Court are a nullity (Distilled from Additional Grounds 5 and 6).

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – MEANING OF JURISDICTION

The word or term Jurisdiction has been defined to mean:

“the authority to which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of authority are imposed by the Statute, Charter or Commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means… A limitation may be… as to the area over which the jurisdiction extends…” see: Ndaeyo V. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11, 24-26. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JUDGMENT – WHEN A JUDGMENT OF COURT TO PAY MONEY TAKES EFFECT

It is settled that unless a Court otherwise orders, a Judgment of Court to pay money take effect from the day or date it was pronounced or delivered in Court and a writ of fifa may issue to enforce that Judgment as soon as it was delivered. A fresh or separate action is not required to be instituted in Court for the purpose of recovery of debt. See: Olatunji V. Owena Bank PLC & Anor. (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 668 SC; Offor V. Leaders & Co. Ltd. (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1032)1,25; Guardians of the Poor of West Ham Union V Church wardens Overseers and Guardian of the Poor of St. Mathew (1895) Q.B. 062. See further: Odion V. Offiong (2011) 16 NWLR (pt. 1272) 111 and section 20 of the sheriff and civil process Act. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

ENFORCEMENT OF DECLARATIVE JUDGMENT – A PARTY WHO OBTAINS A DECLARATIVE JUDGMENT MAY GO BACK TO COURT TO SEEK AN ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT

However different considerations apply in relation to declaratory Judgments which may be enforced by a subsequent action (where a right has been violated) of a party who obtains a declaratory Judgment may go back to Court and seek an order to enforce it without which the Judgment given in his favour remain dormant and unenforceable. See Abeje V. Alade (2010) LPELR – 3561 (CA); Okoya V. Santili (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172, 228. In all those situations, enforcement of those Judgments are regulated by the Procedure set out in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Acts and Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES – THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT RULES

In the first place Order IV Rule 8(1) of the Judgment (enforcement) Rules applies only “as between the original parties…” which the present Appellants were not even as at the date Motion, NO. GM/108M/2010 was argued and Granted on 6th December, 2010. Original parties are the parties to the Judgment sought to be enforced. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

EXTENSION OF TIME – POWER OF COURT TO GRANT EXTENSION OF TIME TO TAKE STEPS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING EXECUTION

On a proper application made pursuant to Order IV Rule 8(2) of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, a Court may grant leave for extension of time for the applicant to take steps as may be necessary for the purpose of levying execution under Order IV Rule 8(1). To this extent therefore, I am in agreement with Counsel for the Respondents that time can be extended on the application of the party seeking benefits of Order IV Rule 8(1). PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

ORDER OF JOINDER – MEANING OF JOINDER

An Order of Joinder of a person to a Suit as party connotes the existence of party over which an addition is made. In Bello V. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 (SC) it was held that an order of joinder can be made that a person be added as a party to a suit where it considers that such a person ought to be party to the proceedings. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

LIMITATION ACT – THE PURPOSE OF THE LIMITATION ACT

The whole purpose of a Limitation Act is to apply to persons who have good causes of action which they could, if so disposed, enforce, and to deprive them of the power of enforcing them after they have lain by for the number of years respectfully and omitted to enforce them. In the instant case on appeal, the Judgment sought to be enforced was delivered as far back as in the year 1988. It was only in the year 2010 he sought to enforce that Judgment by the application the Respondents brought to the Court below seeking an order for leave to levy execution. Between 1988 and 2010 is well over ten years. The Limitation Law is meant to cater for this type of situation. In Yare V. Nunku & Ors. (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 394) 129, it was held that a statute of Limitation removes the right of action, the right of enforcement, the right to judicial relief and leaves the Plaintiff with bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce if such cause of action is statute barred. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

EVIDENCE – COURT TO ACCORD PROBATIVE VALUE TO ALL ISSUES/EVIDENCE BEFORE IT

A trial Court like the Court below is vested primarily with the responsibility to assess and accord probative value to all issues or evidence placed before it no matter how stupid such evidence appear to be on the surface. It is for the Court in the course of that evaluation to make a finding of fact relative to evidence before it. For a trial Court and indeed any Court at all to gloss over any piece of evidence placed before it on account of some of same not being worthy for consideration is a serious breach on the right of the party affected to have his case properly considered and adjudicated upon. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

SIGNATURE – SIGNIFICANCE OF A SIGNATURE

 A person’s signature, written names or mark on a document, not under seal signifies an authentication of that document that such a person holds himself out as bound or responsible for the contents of such a document. It is the signature in a document that identifies that document as the act of the party without which the document is suspect. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Limitation Law of Bauchi State

Sheriffs and Civil Process Acts and Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT