CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

CHRISTOPHER OKOYE APPELLANTS

---

MARKUS ELISHA MBAYA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a suit against the Defendant/Appellant in the Upper Area Court; he then applied orally to join the 2nd Appellant which application was granted by the court. The Plaintiff/Respondent had two witnesses who testified on his behalf while the Defendant/Appellant did not present any witness. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the lower Court, which delivered its judgment in favour of the Respondent. Irked with the judgement, the Appellants having obtained the leave of court appealed to this Court. The Appellants’ contention is that by the provisions of Section 12(1) (a) (b) of the Area Court Law (Cap 11) Laws of Adamawa State 1987, an Area Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a natural person. That the Upper Area Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of the Respondent before it as against the 2nd Appellant which is a Company incorporated under Nigerian laws and thus a non-natural person.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Lower Court sitting on appeal was right when considering the provision of Section 12(a) of the Area Court Law of Adamawa State it held that the trial Upper Area Court had the jurisdiction to determine the Suit before it having regard to the status of the 2nd Appellant, a non natural person under the law? Whether the lower Court sitting on appeal was right when it held that the subsequent proceedings of the trial Upper Area Court conducted without notice to the Appellants were not in breach of the Appellants’ right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria? Whether the lower court was right when it dismissed the Appellants’ Issue four submitted before it while holding that the Respondent proved his case before the trial Area Court despite the material contradictions in the evidence of the two witnesses?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF AREA COURTS – PURPORT OF SECTION 12 (1)(A)(B)(C) OF THE AREA COURT LAW (CAP 11) LAWS OF ADAMAWA STATE 1987 ON WHETHER THE UPPER AREA COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER A NON NATURAL PERSON

---

12(1) “Subject to the provision of this Edict and any other written Law, the following persons shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Area Courts:
a)Any person whose parents were members of any tribe or tribes indigenous to some part of Africa and the descendants of any such person;
b)Any person one of whose parents was a member of such tribe;
c)Any person in a cause or matter in which he consents to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Area Court.”
–

---

LACK OF FAIR HEARING – WHETHER A PARTY WHO WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BUT FAILED TO DO SO CAN BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN OF LACK OF FAIR HEARING

---

“it is trite that a Court should give parties reasonable time to present their case before it. If the Court affords parties the opportunity to present their case before it, any party that fails to utilize such opportunity cannot complain of lack of hearing.”

---

BREACH OF FAIR HEARING – WHETHER A PARTY CAN BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN OF BREACH OF FAIR HEARING WHERE HE FAILS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE

---

“In the case of Umaru v. Tunga (2012) ALL FWLR (Part 607) 726 at 740 it was held that:-
“Where a court created the enabling environment for fair hearing to all and a party did not take advantage of the environment, the fault is his and not that of the court. In the instant case, where the Defendant failed to use the opportunity created by the trial court to present his case the allegation of breach of fair hearing was discountenanced by the court.”

---

DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT – WHETHER DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT EARLIER THAN SCHEDULE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT WILL NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT

---

In the case of Contecna International Ltd. v. Church Gate (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 575) 261 at 262 the Supreme Court held:
“…….It would appear to me and I am of the view that the delivery of judgment earlier than scheduled date without notice to the Appellant will not nullify the judgment unless the Appellant show that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Appellant has not shown that any miscarriage of justice has occasioned because its counsel was not present when the judgment was read. It is not shown that if the Appellant counsel had listened to the judgment which was delivered in open court, the decision could have been otherwise…..”

---

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES – WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF A TRIAL COURT WOULD BE REVERSED ON APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES

---

“It is trite that contradictions in the evidence of witnesses may not necessarily be fatal to a case especially when they are minor, and the judgment of a trial court will not be reversed on appeal because there were contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, it must also be shown that the court did not advert its mind to those contradictions. See Taiwo v. Ogundele (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 639) 1033 at 1048 Paras. F-G.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Area Court Law (Cap 11) Laws of Adamawa State 1987|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT