CHIEF EUGENE ENEH V NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS
October 23, 2018Adiele Ndubuisi V The State
October 30, 2018LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2018]SC.717/2017
AREAS OF LAW: APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, FAIR HEARING, JURISDICTION, PARTIES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The 1st Respondent herein who had occupied the position of the National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent (APGA) was suspended from acting in that capacity on ground of misconduct. Subsequently, the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 2nd Respondent appointed another person but unfortunately, he died. So, one Chief Martin Agbaso was purportedly adopted as Acting National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent refused to recognise the adoption of the above person. Due to this development, an application for order of Mandamus to compel the 3rd – 5th Respondents to recognise his appointment as the acting chairman, was filed by the Appellant purportedly acting on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, compelling the 3rd Respondent to accept and recognise the decision of the 2nd Respondent appointing one Chief Martin Agbaso as the Acting Chairman of the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent was neither joined as a party to the application for order of Mandamus nor was heard in the said application despite making copious references to his status, office and standing as person to be affected directly by the outcome of the Mandamus application. The trial court granted the reliefs as prayed. Following the order made by the trial Court, the 1st Respondent herein filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the trial court. Also filed along with the above, an application for leave to appeal as an interested party against the decision of the trial court. The Appellant filed a counter affidavit to the 1st Respondent’s application. The lower court heard the application, and overruled the Appellant’s opposition and granted leave to the 1st Respondent to appeal. The substantive appeal was heard, and the court below delivered its judgment in the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant has filed this appeal alleging error of law on the part of the lower Court for assuming jurisdiction to entertain and determine Appeal No. CA/E/367/2017 which was initiated by a party interested without the prior leave of the court first sought and obtained.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT
HELD:
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
- Whether or not a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the lower court in granting leave to the 1st Respondent to appeal as an interested party against the order for Mandamus made by the trial court.
- Whether or not having been granted leave to appeal as an interested party, the 1st Respondent has a valid Notice of Appeal upon which the appeal against the Judgment of the trial Court dated 22nd May, 2017 was predicated.
RATIONES:
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – REQUIREMENT FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT
“The law is settled that jurisdiction as a threshold or foundational issue that can be raised anytime during the trial of a suit up to finality. However, where raised in an appellate court as a new issue, proper application must be made to raise it as a ground of appeal. See Oshatoba vs Olujitan (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt.655) 159, Amadi vs NNPC (2000) 5 WRN 47; (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.674) 76; (2000) 6 SCNJ 1; (2000) 49 LRCN 1951; (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.674)7.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION – WAYS OF RAISING A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
“A question of jurisdiction must however be properly raised before the court may rightly entertain it. In that wise, it can be raised at any stage of a case both at the trial and on appeal by any of the parties, and it can even be raised orally. The court can also raise it by itself suo motu where the question involves a substantial point of law, substantive and procedural and no further evidence needs be adduced which would affect the decision. See: Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd vs Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) page 675, Madukolu vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, and Oloriode vs Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR page 390.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT
NON-JOINDER OF A NECESSARY PARTY – WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-JOINDER OF A NECESSARY PARTY IN A SUIT IS AN IRREGULARITY THAT AFFECTS THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MATTER
“The law is settled that where a necessary party who ought to be joined is not joined in an action, any judgment obtained against such a party is not a nullity but shall be to no avail. In Azuh vs UBN Plc (2014) LPELR – 22913 (SC), this court had reiterated the clear position of the law that non-joinder of a necessary party in a suit is an irregularity that does not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the matter before it. However, an order made against a person who was not a party to the action before the court, though not a nullity, is to no avail. It cannot stand the test of time and is not binding on such non-party to the action. See: Okoye vs Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 7 SC (Pt.III) (REPRINT) 33 at 56; Green vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR (60) 480. See also Uwazurike & Ors vs Attorney General of the Federation (2013) 4-5 SC (Pt. l) 90 at 119 Lines 16-21; (2013) LPELR-20392 (SC) 1 at 24, Per Fabiyi, JSC (as he then was).” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
APPEAL BY AN INTERESTED PARTY– RATIONALE FOR THE PROVISION OF SECTION 222 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION ON THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY A PARTY WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN AN APPEAL
“A party who has an interest in an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal must, under Section 222 of the Constitution, seek leave of either the High Court or the Court of Appeal to appeal. The rationale for the provision is to enable the Court determine whether it is proper in law to grant the party permission to appeal in the circumstances of the case. See Otu vs A.C.B (2008) VOL. 3 M.J.S.C 191 at 206 Paragraphs F-G, See also (2008) 1 SC (Pt. ll) 1 at 16-17 paragraphs 10-20. See also The Registered Trustees Christ Apostolic Church Nigeria vs Uffiem (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.569) 312; In Re Williams (No. l) (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.718) 329; In Re Ojukwu (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.551) 673. Per Tobi JSC (Blessed Memory as he then was).” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT
LEAVE TO APPEAL AS AN INTERESTED PARTY – DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN GRANTING OR REFUSING AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AS AN INTERESTED PARTY
“In Williams vs Mokwe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt.945) 249, this Court had declared, Per Kalgo JSC (as he then was), in a similar situation as in the instant appeal, that the Court of Appeal has the discretion in granting or refusing an application before it for leave to appeal as an interested party and any such discretion exercised by it remains valid unless it is shown to have been wrongly exercised on erroneous principles or tainted with illegality.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION- INSTANCES THAT WILL WARRANT AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF A LOWER COURT BY A HIGHER COURT
“The attitude of this court, being the appellate court in the circumstances of this appeal, is to respect the exercise of discretion by lower court. Therefore, the settled position is, irrespective of technicalities or ancillary issues, unless the exercise of discretion by a lower court is manifestly wrong, arbitrary, reckless or injudicious, this Court would not interfere. See University Of Lagos vs Olaniyan (Supra), Per Nnamani, JSC (Blessed Memory as he then was) (P. ll. Paragraphs C-E). See also Tetteh Worbi and Ors vs Adamali Asamanyuam and Ors. 14 W.A.C.A. 669 at 671, and Demuren vs Asuni (Supra); Sonekan Vs Smith (1967) 1 All N.L.R. 329 and Odutola vs Kayode (1994)2NWLR (Pt.324) 1.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS- WHETHER AN APPEAL CAN OPERATE AS A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
“It is settled law that an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings. Appropriate motion ought to be first filed at the lower court.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – DUTY OF COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
“As a court of law and justice, our duty must be to look beyond procedural technicalities to do substantial justice, particularly where fair-hearing is in issue. PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE – CONCEPT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
“The court has over the years consistently maintained that the principle of natural justice is sacrosanct in our judicial system and it must as a matter of constitutional obligation is observed by a judicial umpire. The Supreme Court in Adigun Vs Attorney General Of Oyo State (1987) NWLR (Pt.53), Page 709 paragraph G, per Obaseki JSC (Blessed Memory as he then was) further had this to say on principles of natural justice;
“If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is indeed immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at, in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of Justice, the decision must be declared to be no decision,”.
The principle of fairness is crucial and sacrosanct in our judicial system and adjudicatory functions at all level of the judicial hierarchy. It must, as a matter of constitutional obligation, be observed by all judicial officers. This is because fairness and natural justice requires that a party to a cause, or a party who ought reasonably to be a party in the suit, must be given the opportunity to put forward his case or defence freely and fully. See Kano Native Authority Vs Raphael Obiora (1959) 4 FSC 226; (1959) SCNLR 577 cited with approval by Iguh, JSC (as he then was) in Ekiyor & Anor. Vs Bomor (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.519) 1 at 14. PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT
PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF AN ABSENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS
“A position similar as those in this case and Poroye’s was reiterated by this court in the case of Ekpeto vs Wanogho (2005) 3 W.R.N 75 on the principle of fair hearing to the effect that: “There is no doubt at all that the principle of fair hearing is fundamental to all court procedure and proceedings, and like jurisdiction, the absence of it vitiates proceeding well conducted.” See also Salu vs Egeibon (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.348) 23 at 40, Ceekay Traders Ltd. vs General Motors Co. Ltd. (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222) 132, Atano vs Attorney General Of Bendel State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) 201.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
COURT – DUTY OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
“Our duty as an Apex Court is to do substantial, justice-stark justice, based on fairness which to all intent and purposes, seeks to not only ensure fairness in dispensing justice, but which is manifestly seen and duly acknowledged by all and sundry as justice both in content and context. We are not judicial technicians in the workshop of technical Justice. The jurisprudence or logic of our reasoning is and as humanly possible, would be devoid of technicalities. See the case of Oyeyemi & Ors Vs Owoeye & Anor (Supreme Court SUIT NO.SC.102/2013). See also Makeri Smelting Co. Ltd Vs Access Bank (Nig.) Plc (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 411 at 476-417.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – THE NEED TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
“The need to do substantial justice and avoid delving into the error of technicalities is well settled. Even in cases where errors of omission or commission called blunders have been made, it is unjust to hold that because blunders have been committed, the party blundering is to incur the penalty of not having the dispute between him and his adversary determined upon the merits. See also Ajakaiye Vs Idehia (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.364) 504, Artra Ind. Ltd Vs NBC (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.483) 574, Dakat Vs Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt.531) 46, Benson Vs Nigeria Agip Co Ltd (1982) 5 S.C.I.” PER S. D. BAGE, J.S.C.
LEAVE OF COURT- WHETHER OR NOT THE LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“Also to be said is that it is now trite in law and settled that leave is not required to raise the issue of jurisdiction which jurisdictional point can be raised at any time even if at the apex court and without a method carved in stone as to how it can be raised. I rely on the cases of Otti v Ogah (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt.1563) 1 at 28-29; Maraire v State (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt.1552) 283 at 305.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
STATUTES REFERRED TO:
Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Evidence Act 2011
Supreme Court Rules
