PROSPER FUNDS LIMITED v. RAY-MART COMPANY LIMITED &ORS
April 11, 2025JOSKU NIGERIA LIMITED v. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ORS
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 11991
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT AKURE
Wed Mar 21, 2018
Suit Number: CA/AK/131/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE APPELLANTS
BMA VENTURES NIGERIA LIMITED RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent who was at all times a student of the Federal University of Technology, Minna, particularly in the department of Agric Engineering, filed an application for the enforcement of her fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution before the High Court of Niger State sitting at Minna, arising from her expulsion from the University of Technology, Minna, Niger State on alleged grounds of examination misconduct. The case was referred to the Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) for further investigation and by its report; it dismissed the allegation and recommended that the Respondent be recalled to continue her studies having lost one session. Notwithstanding the finding and report of the SDC, the University, 1st Appellant, went ahead to issue a letter, expelling the Respondent from the University hence, she approached the High Court for enforcement of her fundamental right to fair hearing. The trial court dismissed the Respondent’s case. An appeal against the decision of the trial court was allowed. Being dissatisfied with decision of the lower court the Appellant has filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a case that was instituted against a Federal Government agency in a State High Court; and Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a case that was instituted against Public Officers well outside the 3 months’ statutory period.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
UNDISPUTED FACTS – STATUS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
“The law is trite: Facts not disputed are taken as admitted and/or established. They accordingly require no further proof. Admitted facts are, usually regarded as the best evidence: Din V. African Newspapers of Nig. Ltd. (1990) 2 NSCC (pt. 2) 313.”
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF A CITIZEN
Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides
46.(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court for redress.
Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution (ipssma verba with Section 42(1) of the 1979 Constitution) clearly vests concurrent jurisdiction on both the Federal High Court and the State High Court in the matters for the enforcement of a citizen’s fundamental right.
HIGH COURT – MEANING OF A HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES
“A High Court in Section 46(1) of the Constitution and FREP, means and includes the Federal High Court and or a State High Court. Katsina-Alu, JSC (as he then was) had put it succinctly thus in Jack v. University Of Agriculture (supra) at 1518.
In the resolution of this issue, I would like to point out that Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which I reproduced above, has provided the court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Chapter IV. A person whose fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached may therefore apply to a High Court in that State for redress. Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 – defines “a court” as meaning “the Federal High Court” or the High Court of a State”. What this means is this, both the Federal High Court and the High Court of a State have concurrent jurisdiction. An application may, therefore, be made either to the judicial division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State in which the breach occurred, is occurring or about to occur.
See also Gafar v. Government Of Kwara State (2007) ALL FWLR (pt.360) 1415.
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
“On this issue, I have no hesitation agreeing with the respondent’s counsel that the settled position of the law that the jurisdiction to entertain actions for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in Chapter IV thereof is concurrently vested in the Federal High Court and the State High Court. This is without with prejudice to whether any of the parties is either the Federal Government or an agent or agency of the Federal Government.”
EXAMINATION MISCONDUCT- PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT MUST BE AFFORDED A UNIVERSITY STUDENT ACCUSED OF EXAMINATION MISCONDUCT
“The principles of natural justice, as held by the lower court, demand that a student accused of examination misconduct and expelled for that misconduct must be afforded an opportunity by the body statutorily empowered to take such decision, either judicially or quasi-judicially, to:-
a.know the allegation against him;
b.be present when the case against him is heard, and
c.not only to state his side of the allegation but also to contradict the case against him by the cross-examination of the witnesses called by his accusers.”
COURT OF APPEAL- CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A COURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR APPEAL FROM A HIGH COURT
“Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution that provides: subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the “High Courts”, including the High Court of Niger State.”
APPEAL – MEANING OF AN APPEAL
“Thus, as it is stated by this Court in Effiom & Ors. v. I.N.E.C. & Anor. (2010) 14 NWLR (pt.1213) 106 and First Bank Of Nigeria Plc v. T.S.A. Industries Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (pt.1216) 247; an appeal is not a new action, but a continuation of the matter which is a subject of the appeal; and that it is a complaint against the decision of the court below. In effect, as Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) puts it in Effiom v. INEC (supra), it amounts to a complete review of the proceedings and the decision appealed against”.
DEFENCE – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OWES THE DEFENDANT A DUTY TO RAISE HIS DEFENCE
“The basic principle of our adversarial jurisprudence is that it is the duty of the defendant to raise his defence. The trial court owes the defendant no duty to raise a defence to the claims against him. Doing that offends Section 36(1) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule that the Court or Tribunal established by law shall be “constituted in such a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. See also Section 17(2)(e) of the Constitution. This injunction is what, in common law, is expressed as nemo judex in causa sua. The rule prohibits or restrains the Judge or court of law from being a judge in his own cause in order to actualise his or its impartiality.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANT OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“I agree, as submitted for the appellants relying on Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296, that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court of first instance that entertains the claim.”
BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF
“Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2004 (now Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011) places the burden of proof, in a suit or proceeding, on that party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
PROVISIONS – MODE OF CONSTRUING LIMITATION PROVISIONS
“Limitation provisions, like penal provisions, take away or derogate from vested rights. They have to be construed strictly. See Wilson v. A. G, Bendel State (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.4) 572; Ojo v. Governor Of Oyo State (1989) NWLR (pt. 95) l”.
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|
Federal Universities of Technology Act, Cap F23, 2004 LFN|
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979|
Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 LFN 2004|
