CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

DANLADI DANBEKI

---

ANDEKIN Y. RIKI

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as Plaintiff before the Taraba State High Court, claimed against the Appellants as Defendants, jointly and severally for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner and is entitled to a Customary Certificate of Occupancy over all the parcel of land and all the appurtenances therein contained lying and situate at now Ussa Local Government Area, known as KAGBABEAN covered by Takum Local Government Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. 2857, dated the 2nd day of January 1999, registered at page 45 Vol. 1 Plot 107, farm land with an area of 67 hectares issued in the name of YOHANNA RIKI. The Plaintiff sought an order of forfeiture against the 1st -8th & 10th Defendants, an Order declaring the 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Defendants as trespassers ab initio and ejecting them from the land of the Plaintiffs amongst other reliefs. Upon the conclusion of trial, Judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. The Respondent in his amended Brief of argument raised a preliminary objection contending that despite the specific and unambiguous nature of the prayer by the Appellants and the Order of this honorable Court granting leave to the Appellants, the Appellants instead, deliberately transmitted a fundamentally different Record of Appeal wherein the Defendants at the trial Court are “14” (Danladi Danbeki &“13 Ors.”). Preliminary objection was struck out. That the Appellants have first disobeyed Court Order by their failure, neglect and refusal to transmit the specific Record of Appeal in the specific Suit No: TRST/7/2008 as was ordered by this Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Struck Out

---

ISSUES

---

Whether there was a competent suit before the trial court, in view of the fact that the processes commencing the suit, filed by counsel were not signed?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

---

“The Courts now, have shifted away from narrow technical approach to justice to substantial justice between parties see: (1) Odom vs. PDP (2016) 18 WRN p. 114 at 124 Ratio 8 (SC). (2) Adama vs. State (2017) 42 WRN p. 1 at 8 ratio 6 (SC). (3)Edo State Government vs. Business ventures (Nig) Ltd (2017) 42 WRN p. 154 at 156 Ratio 3 (CA). (4) INEC vs. Mbawike (2017) 6 WRN p. 110 at 118 ratio 10. (CA).
In the unreported Appeal of Pastor David D. Ishaya Etsu vs. Mr. Samaila Maiwiya & 6 Ors (CA/YL/65/2016) this court refused to accept the argument, (similar to the one being canvassed by the Respondent’s Counsel now). This Court held that:
“On the complaint that the Appellant has tampered with the order in which Defendants/Respondents are shown in the main suit, since the 7th Respondent has not been misled by the re-arrangement and there has been substantial compliance with Order 6 Rule 2 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 the complaint must be ignored.
The trend now is for Courts to focus on substantial justice by refusing to cling to technicalities. See: Akamgbo-Okadigbo vs Chidi (2015) 3 SCNJ 294 at 319 and kakih vs PDP (2014) 7 SCNJ 65 at 92-93.”

---

ORIGINATING PROCESS –CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF AN ORIGINATING PROCESS

---

“The validity of an Originating process before a Court of law is fundamental, as it is a sine qua non to the competence and legitimacy of a suit – Ministry of Works & Transport Adamawa State v. Yakubu (2013) 24 WRN (Pt. 1) 7 Ratio 5 (SC), Oyeyemi v. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc. (2014) 7 WRN 139 at 145 Ratio 6 (CA). I must emphasize that the validity of any originating process known to law, must comply with the law. Its validity in any proceeding must be settled as it is a fundamental issue and requirement, to make the process alive or indeed make it a live issue.
Failure therefore to properly sign an originating process, or any process of Court for that matter in the proper way, makes the suit liable to be set aside as being incompetent, thereby rendering the proceedings predicated on it, null and void. – Kida v. Ogunmola (2006) ALL FWLR PT 327-402.

---

ORIGINATING PROCESS – FORMAT OF A VALID ORIGINATING PROCESS

---

“Order 5 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2011 provides:-
1)“Originating process shall be prepared by a Plaintiff or his Legal Practitioner and shall be clearly printed on opaque foolscap size paper of good quality.
2)(1)The Registrar shall seal every originating process whereupon it shall be deemed to be issued.
(2) A Plaintiff or his Legal Practitioner shall, on presenting any originating process for sealing, leave with the Registrar as many copies of the process as there are Defendants to be served and one copy for endorsement of service on each Defendant.
3) Each copy shall be signed by the Legal Practitioner or by Plaintiff where he sues in person and shall be certified after verification by Registrar as being a true copy of the original process filed.”
The Statement of Claim at Page 22 of the printed record also carried the name and address of the same legal practitioner, without his signature. The Originating process is therefore incompetent for not carrying the signature of the legal practitioner who prepared it. See the case of Faobo & Ar. v. Ndukwe & Ar. (2019) LPELR – 48560 (CA).”

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2011|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---