Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 33518

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT YOLA

Mon Jun 1, 2015

Suit Number: CA/YL/49/14

CORAM

PARTIES

AUDU JIBRIN GARBA

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State (trial Court). The plaintiff had instituted action at the Federal High Court Yola against the Defendant, On the Order of the Federal High Court, the suit was transferred to the High court of Adamawa State where it was heard to conclusion and a decision given. The Plaintiff had by his Statement of claim (as amended) claimed against the Defendant the reliefs listed at paragraph 22(a) – (g). The Defendant in turn filed a defence and denied the claim by virtue of the amended statement of defence. The case proceeded into hearing and evidence elicited by the parties and witnesses called by them. Documents were also tendered and admitted in evidence and the Court thereafter delivered Judgment after taking final submissions of Counsel. The trial Court dismissed plaintiff’s case. The Plaintiff being not satisfied with the decision of the trial Court has lodged an appeal to this instant Court.

HELD

Ground of Appeal deemed abandoned, hereby struck out.

ISSUES

1. Whether on the basis of pleading file (sic) and evidence of pleading by the parties, the trial Court was right to declare that the title of the Appellant over the property in dispute had been validly revoked (ground two)
2. In view of the evidence before the trial Judge whether it was correct for the trial Court to declare that Exhibit “A” and “B” has proved payment of compensation to Appellant and subsequently conferred title to the Respondents (Ground One).

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION –MEANING AND LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION

Talking about jurisdiction and the scope of exercise of same by the Courts, the apex Court held in NDAEYO vs. OGUNNAYA (1977) 1 SC 11, 24 – 26 that jurisdiction is the “authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance as matters presented in a formal way for decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, character 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 further the decision in National Bank of Nigeria Ltd Vs Shoyoe & Anor (1977) 5 SC 181 where the same Court held:-

“If no restriction is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.  A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular court has cognizance or as to area over which the jurisdiction extends or it may partake of both these characteristics.” PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY COURTS MUST BE TRACED TO AN ENABLING LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION

In essence, the Exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts must be traced to the enabling law or the Constitution. That is to say that it is the statute that give vent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts. See A/G Federation vs. Guardian Newspapers (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187 or (1999) 5 SC (Pt. 111) 59; Adeyemi vs. Opoyori (1976) 6 – 10 SC 31; Oladipo vs. NCSB (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 498) 319, 341; Akin vs. University of Ibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 384; ABU vs. Odugbo (2001) 69 LRCN 2632; N.V. SCHEEP vs. MVS AARAZ (2000) LRCN 3131. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OF A STATE OVER PROCEEDINGS COVERED BY STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND COMPENSATION UNDER THE LAND USE ACT

By the combined reading of section 39 (1) and section 51(1) of the Land Use Act the High Court of a state has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings in respect of land covered by statutory right of occupancy issued by government and proceedings to determine any question of entitlement of persons to compensation under the Act. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT AND CUSTOMARY COURT OVER PROCEEDINGS COVERED BY CUSTOMARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNDER THE LAND USE ACT

The Jurisdiction of the State High Court under the Land use Act also extends to cover cases under section 41 of the Land Use Act. In other words the state High Court and the Area and customary Courts both exercise concurrent jurisdiction over matters covered by customary certificate of occupancy issued by local Governments under section 41 of the Land Use Act. See the decision in ADISA Vs. OYINWOLA (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 674) 110. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE OVER A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Further to that is the general jurisdiction conferred by the constitution on the High Court. The High Court of a state has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine cases over a wide range of issues in any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – WHETHER OR NOT THE POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE OVER A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES IS LIMITED OR NOT

This power conferred on the State High Court under Section 272 (1) of the Constitution is however not unlimited. For instance, the State High Court will not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters listed under section 251(1) of the same constitution as these are causes and matters reserved exclusively for the Federal High Court to deal with. More specifically, the state High Court will not entertain causes and matters for which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is involved as a party under section 251(1) (p) (q) (r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION – HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ANY CAUSE

I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Respondent that in determining whether a Court has jurisdiction in any cause or matter, it is the statement of claim or any like Originating Process of Court that should be looked into in order to ascertain whether a given claim itself fall within the subject areas, the Court was empowered by law to adjudicate upon since it is the claim that defines jurisdiction. See. Adisa Vs. Oyinwola (supra) p. 1376 – 1377; NIMR Vs. NURTW (2010) 12 NWLR (1208) 328 ratio 7. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

JURISDICTION –THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT TO HEAR CLAIMS FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND COVERED BY STATUTORY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND COMPENATION UNDER THE LAND USE ACT

The High Court of a State has jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Lands use Act to hear and entertain claims for declaration of title to land covered by Statutory Certificate of Occupancy and also cases of compensation for acquisition of land where it is not tied to acquisition by agency of Federal Government and cases of damages for trespass. Subparagraph 22 (c) (e) (f) of the amended Statement of claim are semblance of the reliefs which fall within the areas which the High Court of a State can adjudicate upon, even though these sub-paragraph (c) (e) (f) of para 22 are tied to the principal claim as ancillary or secondary claims they are severable and the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear those claims as the Trial Court did in this case on appeal. See Jauro Muhammadu & ors. Vs. Yakubu Moda Zambuk & ors. Appeal No CA/J/136/2014 decided on 25th day of March, 2015 where the principal claim in that case is in respect of declaration of title to land but the trial High Court had declined jurisdiction on account of certain reliefs which touch on decisions taken by an agency of Federal Government to acquire disputed farmlands and to subsequently transfer same to another body or person. This Court (per Sankey JCA) in the lead Judgment held that only the state High Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases in respect of land in urban areas covered by section 39 of the Land Use Act as a principal claim irrespective of the parties involved in that case. This I whole heartedly agree. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

GROUND OF MIXED LAW AND FACT – WHAT AMOUNTS TO A GROUND OF MIXED LAW AND FACT

What amounts to a ground of mixed law and fact, ground of law and ground of fact have so extensively been discussed and explained in a number of decided cases including the decision of the Supreme Court in Ogbechie Vs. Onuchie (1986) 2 NWLR (pt. 23) 484, 491 -493 which provides the guide for distinguishing grounds of law and grounds of fact or mixed law and fact. Although these distinctions are hard to draw what’s generally advised is for a thorough examination of the grounds of appeal in each case. The apex Court held: –

“There is no doubt that it is always difficult to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of fact but what is required is to examine thoroughly the grounds of appeal in the case concerned to see whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the lower tribunal of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, in which case it would be question of law, or one that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the lower law and fact. This issue of pure fact is easier to determine….”

The apex Court went further and held that:

“Where therefore a trial Court fails to apply the facts, which it has found, correctly to the circumstances of the case before it, and there is an appeal to a Court or appeal which alleges a mis-direction in the exercise of the application by the trial Court, the ground of appeal alleging the misdirection is a ground of law and not a fact. When the Court of appeal finds such application to be wrong and decides to make its own findings such findings made by the Court of Appeal are issues of fact and not of law. Where the Court of Appeal interferes in such case and there is a further appeal to a higher Court of appeal on the application of the facts, the ground of appeal alleging such mis-direction by the lower Court of appeal is a ground of law and not of fact. It is only where there is an appeal against the finding made by the Court of Appeal in this exercise that issues of fact arise and leave will be required.” PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

LEAVE OF COURT – WHETHER OR NOT LEAVE IS REQUIRED TO APPEAL AGAINST THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF A LOWER COURT

Where an appeal is against a final decision or judgment of lower Court, then irrespective of whether or not the ground or ground or grounds of appeal are of mixed law and fact, leave is not required. Such appeal is as of right and accords with section 241(1) (a) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). See GLOBESTAR ENG. CO. (NIG) LTD vs. MALLE HOLDINGS LTD (1999) 10 NWLR (pt. 662) 271. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

FINAL DECISION – WHEN IS A DECISION OF COURT FINAL

A “Decision” includes “Judgment” and so a “final decision” includes a “Final Judgment”. See Falola Vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2005) 2 SC (pt. 11) 62, 65; Ogilo Vs. Ogolo (2006) 2 SC (pt. 1) 61, 76 – 77. A decision is final when it completely determines the rights of the parties before the Court. See OMONUWA Vs. OSHODIN (1985) 2 SC 1; AKINSANYA Vs, UBA (1986) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 171. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

FINAL DECISION – WHEN IS A DECISION OF COURT FINAL

A “Decision” includes “Judgment” and so a “final decision” includes a “Final Judgment”. See Falola Vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2005) 2 SC (pt. 11) 62, 65; Ogilo Vs. Ogolo (2006) 2 SC (pt. 1) 61, 76 – 77. A decision is final when it completely determines the rights of the parties before the Court. See OMONUWA Vs. OSHODIN (1985) 2 SC 1; AKINSANYA Vs, UBA (1986) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 171. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

GROUND OF APPEAL – WHEN IS A GROUND OF APPEAL SAID TO BE ABANDONED

From a long line of decided cases it is now settled that a ground of Appeal in respect of which no issue has been formulated is deemed abandoned and such ground should be struck out. See ENESPO J. CONTINENTAL LTD vs. CORONA SHIFAH RTSGES – ILSCHAFT & ORS (2006) 5 SCNJ 17; VICTOR ADELEKAN vs. ECUMLINE NV (2006) 5 SCNJ 137. PER – SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA

CASES CITED

Not Available.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

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

Evidence Act

Land Use Act

High Court Law Cap 62 laws of Adamawa State

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT