BRUNEL LOGISTICS AND GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED V KINGSLEY EGBUNA
March 20, 2025MR. GOODNEWS EBUBECHI NGADI v. FIDELITY BANK PLC & ANOR
March 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-12) Legalpedia 24319 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Lagos
Tue Dec 13, 2022
Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/528/2019
CORAM
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JCA
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO JCA
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN JCA
PARTIES
CALEB UNIVERSITY & ANOR
APPELLANTS
CHIEF ASHIRU ODERINDE & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts of the case in hinged on an intra-family feud, a section of the family commenced an action at the Lagos State High Court in 2003 against some members of another branch of the family. Judgment was entered for the claimants in that case on 11/09/2008, they also obtained an order for possession from the Lagos State High Court on 19/05/2015. In June, 2016, the Appellants were served with originating processes, wherein the Respondents claimed for a declaration that they are entitled to statutory/customary right of occupancy to a parcel of land in Isiwu, Ikorodu Division of Lagos State. Whilst the suit was still pending the Appellants received a letter notifying them about the judgment of 11/09/2008 and the order for possession of 19/05/2015 threatening to take possession of the 1st Appellant’s land. The Appellants (as claimants) approached the High Court of Lagos State for an order setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 11th September, 2008 and the order for possession made on the 19th May 2015 in Suit No. IKD/63/2003: Chief Ashiru Oderinde & 7 Ors V. Yekini Owolegbon Bangbiye & 9 Ors having been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.
The case of the Appellant at the lower Court is that they are lessee of the Lagos State Government, that the land was allocated to them after it was compulsorily acquired vide “Notice of Revocation of Customary Rights of Occupancy” published in Lagos State Gazette No. 33, volume 18 of 4th July, 1985. According to the Appellants, in line with the purpose of the allocation, the 1st Appellant substantially developed the University with several houses and structures placed on the land for educational purpose and running full University academic session on the land peacefully. The 1st – 4th Respondents maintained in their counter-affidavit that their land was never compulsorily acquired by Lagos State Government and allocated to the 1st Appellant. At the conclusion of hearing, the High Court of Lagos State dismissed the Appellants’ claim in a considered Ruling delivered on 05/03/2018. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the suit at the lower Court, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal at the instant court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial Court was right to have held that the Appellants, not being a party to Suit No. IKD/63/2003: Oderinde & Ors v. Bamgbaiye & Ors and the resulting judgment of 11 September, 2008 given therein, are disentitled from applying to set aside the said Judgment ?
2. Whether the trial Court was right to have held that the Judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction does not come within the purview of Order 3, Rule 5 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012 and that the reliefs sought by the appellants cannot be pursued by an action instituted by originating summons ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENT – WHETHER OR NOT A COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE ITS OWN JUDGMENT
The law is settled that a Court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment or order obtained by means of misrepresentation and concealment of facts in the nature of fraud, or where the Court is devoid of jurisdiction. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
JUDGMENT – CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A JUDGMENT WOULD BE SET ASIDE
The Courts have set down the circumstances under which judgment would be set aside:
Where the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit on the Court of one or more of the parties. Such a judgment can be set aside by means of a fresh action.
Where the judgment is a nullity in which case a person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside.
Where it is obvious that the Court was misled into giving the judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it.
Where the judgment was given in absence of jurisdiction.
Where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication.
See DINGYADI VS. INEC (2011) LPELR-950 (SC), JEV VS. IYORTYOM & ORS (2014) LPELR-23000 (SC), BELLO VS. INEC & ORS (2010) LPELR-767 (SC), OLUFUNMISHE VS. FALANA (1990) LPELR-2516 (SC), IGWE & ORS VS. KALU & ORS (2002) LPELR-1455 (SC), TOMTEC NIGERIA LTD VS. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (2009) LPELR-3256 (SC), ALAWIYE VS. OGUNSANYA (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1348) 570 @ 620. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
JUDGEMENT – CONDITION TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE A JUDGMENT CAAN BE SET ASIDE
A party, or even a non-party to a suit, can only apply that judgment entered in such a suit be set aside if he can prove that his right is affected one way or the other by the said judgment. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
JUDGMENT – A JUDGMENT OF A COURT CAN ONLY BIND PARTIES TO A SUIT
That being the case, the Appellants have no legal basis to apply to set aside a judgment in which they were not parties and in which their interest was not jeopardized or threatened. On this score, I am in agreement with the finding of the learned trial Judge at page 150 of the Record when his lordship said:
“A judgment of a Court only bind parties to the suit, their heirs and/or agent, but certainly not a stranger. The Applicants herein are strangers to IKD/63/2003, they can therefore not be bound by the terms of the Judgment. See Obaseki vs. Orukwo (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1062) page 138. Since the interest of the Applicants are not in any way affected, it is therefore improper to seek to set aside the Judgment.”
I endorse the above finding of the lower Court in resolving Issue 1 against the Appellants. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – WHEN ORIGINATING SUMMONS IS RESORTED TO
In other words, originating summons is resorted to only in non-contentious matters, where the evidence in the main is documentary and there is no serious dispute on the existence of such documents. In the case of INAKOJU & ORS VS. ADELEKE & ORS (SUPRA), Niki Tobi, JSC, (of blessed memory) said of originating summons:
“In originating summons, facts do not have a pride of place in the proceedings. The cynosure is the applicable law and its construction by the Court. The situation is different in a trial commenced by writ of summons where the facts are regarded as holding a pride of place and the fountain head of the law, in the sense that the facts lead to a legal decision on the matter. That is not the position in proceedings commenced by originating summons where facts do not play a central role but an infinitesimal role, if at all.”
Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY BEGIN BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS
As rightly submitted by learned senior counsel for the Appellants, proceedings may begin by originating summons where the sole or principal question is, or is likely to be one of construction of a written law or of any instrument made under any written law or of any deed, Will, contract or other document or some other question of law; or there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute as to facts. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – WHEN ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE WILL NOT AVAIL A CLAIMANT
The law is settled that where the facts are riotously in dispute or they are hostile, originating summons procedure will not avail a Claimant. Where the issue is that of construction of documents or interpretation of statutory provisions, it is safe and appropriate to come by way of originating summons. See JEV VS. IYORTYOM & ORS(SUPRA). Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
COURT JUDGMENT – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF COURT DO NOT FORM PART OF “OTHER WRITTEN INSTRUMENT” AS USED IN THE RULES OF COURT
Learned senior counsel for the Appellants urged the Court to hold that the phrase “other written instrument” as used in Order 3 Rule 5, includes judgments of Court. With due deference to the learned senior counsel, I do not subscribe to that view, as doing so will result in absurdity. If, for instance, it is taken that the High Court is conferred with power to interpret judgment as part of “other written instrument” as used in the Rules of Court, it follows that the High Court will be competent to be called upon to interpret not only the judgments of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction but also the judgments of the Court of Appeal as well as that of the Supreme Court, all in the name of “other written instruments.” This is the absurdity that the interpretation sought by the learned senior counsel will create, if allowed. In the case OF RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO. LTD & ORS VS. AKIB (2006) LPELR-2937, the Supreme Court held that a judgment of Court of law cannot be subjected to interpretation by a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction like a deed, a will or an instrument containing right and obligations of parties. Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was) proceeded to hold at pages 18-19, thus:
“…whether anything reduced to writing is an instrument largely depends on the context in which it is used. For example, the same Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 3 at page 1386 stated plainly that “orders of Court were not instrument within Apportionment Act, 1834”. One may find support in this observation by Stroud to say that a judgment of a Court of law can hardly be accommodated under the words “other written instrument” under Rule 1 of Order 46 of the Lagos High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1994, under which the appellants filed their application for the interpretation of the consent judgment of 4-5-98.”
The above pronouncement by the apex Court has put the matter beyond contention, that judgments and orders of Court do not form part of “other written instrument” as used in the Rules of Court, as to be subjected to interpretation by the High Court. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – MEANING OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
Originating summons is one of the four ways of commencing civil proceedings under the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012. Originating summons is geared towards expeditious determination of the dispute between the parties in which facts are not likely to be disputed. Where the principal question in a suit is for construction of a written law, which includes the Constitution, or involve only questions of law without dispute as to fact, originating summons will be an appropriate method to commence such suit. See DAPIANLONG & ORS VS. DARIYE & ORS (2007) LPELR-928 (SC), INAKOJU & ORS VS. ADELEKE & ORS (2007) LPELR-1510 (SC). Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
EVIDENCE – APPROPRAITE EVIDENCE FOR CASES WITH DISPUTED FACTS, COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND, LAND MATTERS.
To unravel the truth about the origin of that letter and the real persons behind it, would require evidence by way of witness deposition and the cross-examination of such a witness(es). The same applies to the identity of the land as well as the issue of compulsory acquisition by the Government of Lagos State, which are all put in issue. Affidavit evidence is not enough to substantiate the identity of the land, subject matter of Suit No. IKD/63/2003, the judgment of which is being sought to be set aside. Similarly, the dispute over compulsory acquisition cannot be resolved via affidavits. These disputed facts cannot be proved by affidavit evidence, thereby making the originating summons procedure adopted by the Appellants inappropriate in the present circumstance. Consequently, I resolve issue 2 against the Appellants. Per – MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012
