CORAM

---

BRETT A.G. CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA

BAIRMIAN JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ONYEAMA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

AJEGBO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

COKER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

BOB O. AKAIGHE

APPELLANTS 

---

ONOMUIYORIVBIYEFE IDAMA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, TRIAL DE NOVO, JURISDICTION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant appealed against the decision of the court below which had remitted its case to the magistrate court for the matter to be heard denovo.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court held that the appeal court cannot in our opinion send the case to a receiving court which has no original jurisdiction to hear the dispute, but must send it to a court which is competent in that respect. The other consideration is this-whether a satisfactory trial is likely to be had in the court to which it is proposed to send the case; otherwise the proper course is for the appeal court itself to rehear the case under paragraph (a) of section 53. In this case the customary courts did not deal with the case satisfactorily, and that was why the High Court ordered it to be reheard de novo before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Ward. But the order was ultra vires whether under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 53, and must be set aside; and thus the appeal before the High Court will become reinstated as an appeal still pending in that court, which will be able to order plans and take any other steps which may be necessary with a view to have a satisfactory rehearing.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the order made by the High Court Judge is erroneous in points of law because the Magistrates’ Courts have no jurisdiction in matters relating to title to land.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ON EFFECT OF COURT TRYING A MATTER OVER WHICH IT HAS NO JURISDICTION

---

“If a court tries without jurisdiction a case which is begun in it, the appeal court will rule that the trial was nugatory; one expects the appeal court not to create a trial on which it would frown in other circumstances. We are, however, of the opinion that it is a not a matter of discretion: the appeal court cannot send the case to a court that cannot entertain the dispute In its original jurisdiction. The contrary view means that the appeal court is empowered at its discretion to confer on the receiving court, merely for the purpose of the case sent to it, a jurisdiction which it has not under the law”- BAIRAMIAN,J.S.C

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Horsfall v. Amachree, 4 W.A.C.A. 18

2. Ekeleme v. Ugwuiro, 8 W.A.C.A. 224

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Magistrates’ Courts Law, cap. 74 of the Laws of the Western Region

2. Customary Courts Law, cap. 31 of the laws of the Western Region

3. Native Courts Ordinance (printed as cap. 142 in the 1948 Laws of Nigeria)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT