CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

BULUS HAMMAN APPELLANTS

---

AMINU UMAR BABA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Court of Appeal, sitting in Yola delivered judgment in this appeal on the 9th December, 2019, in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Applicant has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, hence this application. The Applicant has brought this application pursuant to Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules,2016 and the inherent powers of this Court praying the Court for an Order granting him leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court on other grounds other than grounds of Law. The Application is on six Grounds. In response, the Respondent opposed the application on points of law, it submitted that the appeal is incompetent as there is no appeal to the Supreme Court on any other ground other than on law.

---

HELD

---

Application Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

None

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPEAL, COURT, JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

---

GROUND OF APPEAL – WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN APPEALS WHERE THE GROUND OF APPEAL INVOLVES GROUNDS OF FACTS AND MIXED LAW AND FACTS
“I have considered the reliefs sought in the application, the grounds for the application, the supporting affidavit and argument of the counsel on both sides. It is clear that the application is sought pursuant to Section 233(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which is non – existent. Following the Alterations of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) there is no appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds of facts and mixed law and facts. All appeals on grounds of facts or mixed law and facts terminate at the Court of Appeal. By the Alterations of the 1999 Constitution 1st, 2nd and 3rd Alterations, there is no longer Section 233(3) of the Constitution, under which the present application was brought. The resultant effect is that the Supreme Court can only now entertain appeals where the ground of appeal involved questions of law, see, Section 233 (1) and (2) of the Constitution which provides as follows:
233(1): “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other Court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.
(2)An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases –
(a)Where the grounds of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.”
From the above provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear appeals where the ground of appeal involves questions of facts or mixed law and facts as sought by the applicant, such appeals terminate at this Court. See, Shittu Vs. Pan Ltd (Supra)”. –

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONER, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

---

COUNSEL – DUTY OF COUNSEL TOWARDS HIS CLIENT, OPPOSING COUNSEL AND COURT
“It is noteworthy that learned counsel in the performance of his duty as an advocate owes the court and his client a duty to put forward his case when he sincerely knows he has one and to withdraw and advise his client accordingly when he knows he has none rather than waste the precious time of the opposing side and the Court. Learned Counsel is duty bound to do his best in advocacy without playing a hide and seek game and hoping to get away with it. In the present case, the position of the Supreme Court in Shittu’s Case was made available and read in open court assuming learned counsel was not aware of the decision and the alterations of the 1999 Constitution, which is doubtful”. –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Act|Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ ULL JUDGMENT

---