Legalpedia Citation: (2015-02) Legalpedia (SC) 15112
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Feb 12, 2015
Suit Number: SC.92/2005
CORAM
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GOYANG KAYILI APPELLANTS
1. ESLY YILBUK
2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL PLATEAU STATE
3. PANKSHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Two Ruling Houses exist in Somji village, namely Neha and Nees which stool is rotational. The last village head came from Nees family and it was the turn of the Neha family to produce a candidate to the stool but the 1st Defendant/Appellant from the Nees family was rather appointed by the Nees family despite protest from Neha family which appointment was subsequently confirmed by the 3rd Defendant/ Respondent. The Plaintiff/1st Respondent who are members of Neha family of Somji village in Kabwir District of Pankshin Local Government Area and entitled to the throne of the village Head of Somji protested the selection of the 1st Defendant/Appellant as the village head of Somji by writing several letters to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents. No action was taken and the 1st Defendant/Appellant was officially installed and presented with a letter of appointment as the village head, hence this action instituted in a representative capacity by the Plaintiff/1st Respondent and two others who are now deceased, against the 1st Defendant/ 2nd-3rd Respondents at the High Court of Jos, which was later transferred to Pankshin High Court in 1987, claiming among others a declaration that the purported appointment and installation of the 1st Defendant by the 3rd Defendant and confirmation of same by the 2nd Defendant, as the village head of Somji is null and void, a declaration that the Plaintiffs and Neha family is the sole house or have right to aspire to the throne of the village head Somji. The trial court found against the Plaintiffs and held that though the Neha house was one of the ruling houses in Somji and that the stool rotates between the ruling houses, that members of the Neha ruling house cannot ascend to the throne unless they pay compensation for assisting the people of Bam to kill Kankala, a past village head of Somji. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the lower court allowed the appeal hence this appeal to the apex court at the instance of the 1st Defendant/Appellant.
HELD
Appeal dismissed and Cross-Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial High Court Pankshin lacked the jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. PLD/J.192/82 as instituted by the then Plaintiffs?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proved the fact of rotation at the trial and whether this fact is still in issue in view of the finding of the trial court on the issue which has not been appealed against?
3. Whether in view of the holding of the trial court that Neha is a Ruling House in Somji for the purpose of the stool of village Head of Somji and that the stool is rotational between all the Ruling Houses and there is no cross appeal against these findings of the trial court, the Respondents were not entitled to the reliefs being appealed against?
4. Whether the finding of the lower court that the kingmakers of Somji for the purpose of the stool of village Head of Somji are the council of elders of Somji and the traditional Chief Priest of Somji together with the Chief of Bolkon is perverse?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO VENTILATE GRIEVANCES IN COURT – THE RIGHT PROVIDED TO AGGRIEVED PERSONS TO BRING THEIR GRIEVANCES TO COURT CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO ANY LEGISLATION.
“The Constitution has provided an opportunity for aggrieved persons to ventilate their grievances in a court of law which is empowered to determine any civil proceeding in which the existence of a legal right, power, duty, liability, interest, obligation or claim is in issue. This right is guaranteed and cannot be taken away or be made subject to any other legislation whatever.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT IS DISTINCT FROM THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED THERETO.
“While admissibility of a document may be made under the Evidence Act, the weight to be attached to its contents is another matter.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
RELIEF – WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT WHAT IS NOT CLAIMED
“There is no doubt that a court of law is not a charitable institution or Father Christmas and this court has held time and again that a court of law has no jurisdiction to grant a relief not claimed. See: A,G. Abia State Vs A.G, Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265; Agbi Vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65; Shena Security Co. Ltd. Vs. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 34 NSCQR Pt. 11, 287.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IS FATAL TO A PROCEEDING.
“Absence of jurisdiction therefore is fatal and consequential and renders a proceeding of non effect.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – WHETHER ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION CAN LIMIT THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT
“No law other than the Constitution itself can limit the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court or vest the judicial powers of the Federation on the State Governor.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES –INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN MAKING A PROVISION FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO APPROACHING THE COURT FOR REDRESS
“By making provision for the resolution of disputes by the prescribed authority a condition precedent to approaching the court for redress, the intention of the lawmakers is to reduce the number of such disputes that eventually find their way into court. It is a means of alternative dispute resolution to reduce congestion of cases before the court. Such provision cannot however oust the jurisdiction of the court and confer judicial powers on the Governor or prescribed authority.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION RENDERS ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED THERE FROM NULL AND VOID.
“The law is well settled on the question of jurisdiction of a court which is so fundamental that the absence of same renders any proceeding conducted as null and void and without any legal effect whatsoever.” The locus classicus case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim(1962) SC. NLR 31; SPDC Nig.Ltd. V. Isaiah (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.723) 168 and Peenok Investment Ltd. V. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (198) 4 NCLR 122 are all well in point. See also Mozie V. Mbamalu (2006) All FWLR (pt. 341) 1200 at 1232.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
PROOF OF CUSTOMARY LAW –CUSTOMARY LAW IS TO BE PLEADED AND PROVED BY EVIDENCE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY NOTICED.
“Under the Evidence Act, a customary law is a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by evidence unless it has been judicially noticed. The case of Lipede v. Sonekan (1995) I NWLR (Pt. 374) 668 is in point.” PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.
SEPARATION OF POWERS – THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT USURP THE POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND VICE VERSA.
“The Constitution is very clear and specific on separation of the powers between the arms of government to wit the Executive, Legislator and the Judiciary at both Federal and State levels; thus the Executive cannot exercise or usurp the powers of the Judiciary and vice versa.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
CUSTOMARY LAW RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS – THE DUTY OF COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OR APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS IS TO DISCOVER WHAT THE CUSTOMARY LAW IS AND APPLY THE LAW FOR DECLARATION
“It is not the business of the court to make declaration of customary law relating to the selection or appointment of chiefs. But it is the business of the court to make a finding of what the customary law is and apply the law for declaration.” PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE ARE MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY A PARTY, THE COURT IS ENJOINED TO REJECT THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE.
The law is well positioned that where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick and choose which of the conflicting versions to follow. The entire evidence must be rejected. See Mogaji V. Cadbury (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
DETERMINANT OF JURISDICTION – IT IS THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF A COURT.
“It is the plaintiffs claim in a matter that determines the jurisdiction of the court. See Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi V. INEC (No. 1) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.106) 42 at 48. See also Akinfolarin V. Akinnola (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 659 and Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31 at 51.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION – ANY LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIION IS NULL AND VOID
“The Constitution is also held as supreme by virtue of Section l(i) of the 1979 provision which is also same in the 1999 Constitution. The effect is, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void while the Constitution shall prevail”. PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C
OUSTER OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT – ANY LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTING TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS NULL AND VOID.
“Any law purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the court would, to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution, be null and void and of no effect. See: Military Governor of Ondo State Vs. Adewunmi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.82) 280; Osagie II Vs. Offor (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 541) 205; (1998) 1-2 SC 150; A.G Ondo State Vs. A.G Federation & Ors, (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; National Union of Electricity Employees & Anor. Vs. B.P.E (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 538.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
ORDER OF COURT – DUTY OF THE COURT TO MAKE ANY ORDER IN RESPECT OF ALL CAUSES AND MATTER, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY ASKED FOR BY A PARTY
“It is open to the court in all causes and matters to make any order which it considers necessary for doing justice whether or not such order has been expressly asked for by the person entitled to the benefit there from.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
PROVISION OF A STATUTES WITH RESPECT TO A LEGAL LINE OF ACTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE – WHERE A STATUTE PROVIDES A LEGAL LINE OF ACTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY MUST EXHAUST ALL THE AVAILABLE REMEDIES BEFORE PROCEE
“The position of the law is that where a statute provides a legal line of action for the determination of an issue, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in the law before going to court. See: Eguamwense vs. Amaghizenwem (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 1; Aribisala vs. Ogunyemi (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 212 @231-232 G-B; Ogologo Vs. Uche (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. (945) 226 @245 E; Owoseni Vs. Faloye (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719 @ 740 G-H.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
COURT – DUTY OF COURT NOT TO MAKE CASE FOR A PARTY
“It is not open for a court to make out a case for any party.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
LIMITATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – ANY LAW WHICH TENDS TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT IS NULL AND VOID
“In view of the supremacy of the Constitution therefore, any law which tends to limit the jurisdiction of the state High Court or vests the judicial powers of the Federation on a state Governor is null and void.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – THE HIGH COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ANY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THERE EXIST A LEGAL RIGHT/CLAIM IN ISSUE. – SECTION 236 (1) OF THE 1979 CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 272 (1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION.
“By the provisions of Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution which is same as Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the High Court of a state has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceeding in which the existence of a legal right, power, duty, liability, interest, obligation or claim is in issue.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
ORDER OF COURT – A COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER TO AVOID FUTURE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES EVEN THOUGH SUCH ORDER WAS NOT CLAIMED BY EITHER PARTY.
“A court can make an order which appears incidental and necessary for a proper and final determination of a cause before it. It can be made, though not claimed, so as to obviate further or later dispute between the parties. See: Nneji v. Chukwu (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 78) 184 at 208.” PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE EXIST UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE, THE COURT IS ENJOINED TO ACT UPON IT.
“The law is trite and enjoins a court to act on an unchallenged evidence.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MINISTRY ON CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS – WHETHER ACTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE MINISTRY IN CHARGE OF CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS ARE ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH WHICH THE GOVERNOR ACTS
“It is also a matter of common knowledge that the Local Government as well as the Ministry in charge of Chieftaincy affairs are organs of government through which the Governor acts; hence their action is therefore deemed to be the action of the Governor.” PER C. B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION RENDERS ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED THERE FROM NULL AND VOID.
“The law is well settled on the question of jurisdiction of a court which is so fundamental that the absence of same renders any proceeding conducted as null and void and without any legal effect whatsoever.” The locus classicus case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim(1962) SC. NLR 31; SPDC Nig.Ltd. V. Isaiah (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.723) 168 and Peenok Investment Ltd. V. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (198) 4 NCLR 122 are all well in point. See also Mozie V. Mbamalu (2006) All FWLR (pt. 341) 1200 at 1232.”
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IS FATAL TO A PROCEEDING.
“Absence of jurisdiction therefore is fatal and consequential and renders a proceeding of non effect.”
DETERMINANT OF JURISDICTION – IT IS THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF A COURT.
“It is the plaintiffs claim in a matter that determines the jurisdiction of the court. See Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi V. INEC (No. 1) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.106) 42 at 48. See also Akinfolarin V. Akinnola (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 659 and Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31 at 51.”
SEPARATION OF POWERS – THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT USURP THE POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND VICE VERSA.
“The Constitution is very clear and specific on separation of the powers between the arms of government to wit the Executive, Legislator and the Judiciary at both Federal and State levels; thus the Executive cannot exercise or usurp the powers of the Judiciary and vice versa.”
JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – THE HIGH COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ANY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THERE EXIST A LEGAL RIGHT/CLAIM IN ISSUE. – SECTION 236 (1) OF THE 1979 CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 272 (1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION.
“By the provisions of Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution which is same as Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the High Court of a state has unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceeding in which the existence of a legal right, power, duty, liability, interest, obligation or claim is in issue.”
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION – ANY LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIION IS NULL AND VOID
“The Constitution is also held as supreme by virtue of Section l(i) of the 1979 provision which is also same in the 1999 Constitution. The effect is, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void while the Constitution shall prevail”.
LIMITATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – ANY LAW WHICH TENDS TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT IS NULL AND VOID
“In view of the supremacy of the Constitution therefore, any law which tends to limit the jurisdiction of the state High Court or vests the judicial powers of the Federation on a state Governor is null and void.”
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – WHETHER ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION CAN LIMIT THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT
“No law other than the Constitution itself can limit the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court or vest the judicial powers of the Federation on the State Governor.”
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE EXIST UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE, THE COURT IS ENJOINED TO ACT UPON IT.
“The law is trite and enjoins a court to act on an unchallenged evidence.”
ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MINISTRY ON CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS – WHETHER ACTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE MINISTRY IN CHARGE OF CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS ARE ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH WHICH THE GOVERNOR ACTS
“It is also a matter of common knowledge that the Local Government as well as the Ministry in charge of Chieftaincy affairs are organs of government through which the Governor acts; hence their action is therefore deemed to be the action of the Governor.”
RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO VENTILATE GRIEVANCES IN COURT – THE RIGHT PROVIDED TO AGGRIEVED PERSONS TO BRING THEIR GRIEVANCES TO COURT CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO ANY LEGISLATION.
“The Constitution has provided an opportunity for aggrieved persons to ventilate their grievances in a court of law which is empowered to determine any civil proceeding in which the existence of a legal right, power, duty, liability, interest, obligation or claim is in issue. This right is guaranteed and cannot be taken away or be made subject to any other legislation whatever.”
COURT – DUTY OF COURT NOT TO MAKE CASE FOR A PARTY
“It is not open for a court to make out a case for any party.”
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT- ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT IS DISTINCT FROM THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED THERETO.
“While admissibility of a document may be made under the Evidence Act, the weight to be attached to its contents is another matter.”
APPEAL – AN APPEAL IS A CONTINUATION OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
“The law is trite and well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the original claim and the lower court as rightly submitted by the appellant’s counsel is obliged to resolve issues that emanate from the claim in the trial court.”
ORDER OF COURT – DUTY OF THE COURT TO MAKE ANY ORDER IN RESPECT OF ALL CAUSES AND MATTER, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY ASKED FOR BY A PARTY
“It is open to the court in all causes and matters to make any order which it considers necessary for doing justice whether or not such order has been expressly asked for by the person entitled to the benefit there from.”
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE ARE MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY A PARTY, THE COURT IS ENJOINED TO REJECT THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE.
The law is well positioned that where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick and choose which of the conflicting versions to follow. The entire evidence must be rejected. See Mogaji V. Cadbury (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393.”
CUSTOMARY LAW RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS – THE DUTY OF COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OR APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS IS TO DISCOVER WHAT THE CUSTOMARY LAW IS AND APPLY THE LAW FOR DECLARATION
“It is not the business of the court to make declaration of customary law relating to the selection or appointment of chiefs. But it is the business of the court to make a finding of what the customary law is and apply the law for declaration.”
PROOF OF CUSTOMARY LAW -CUSTOMARY LAW IS TO BE PLEADED AND PROVED BY EVIDENCE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY NOTICED.
“Under the Evidence Act, a customary law is a matter of fact to be pleaded and proved by evidence unless it has been judicially noticed. The case of Lipede v. Sonekan (1995) I NWLR (Pt. 374) 668 is in point.”
ORDER OF COURT – A COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER TO AVOID FUTURE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES EVEN THOUGH SUCH ORDER WAS NOT CLAIMED BY EITHER PARTY.
“A court can make an order which appears incidental and necessary for a proper and final determination of a cause before it. It can be made, though not claimed, so as to obviate further or later dispute between the parties. See: Nneji v. Chukwu (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 78) 184 at 208.”
RE-EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY AN APPELLATE COURT – WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN RE-EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE.
“An appellate court, inspite of the fact that it has to deal with very cold facts same having been reduced to writing and made the record of the trial court’s proceedings, re-evaluates evidence if it is established that the trial court had fumbled.
PROVISION OF A STATUTES WITH RESPECT TO A LEGAL LINE OF ACTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE – WHERE A STATUTE PROVIDES A LEGAL LINE OF ACTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY MUST EXHAUST ALL THE AVAILABLE REMEDIES BEFORE PROCEEDING TO COURT FOR REDRESS.
“The position of the law is that where a statute provides a legal line of action for the determination of an issue, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in the law before going to court. See: Eguamwense vs. Amaghizenwem (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 1; Aribisala vs. Ogunyemi (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 212 @231-232 G-B; Ogologo Vs. Uche (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. (945) 226 @245 E; Owoseni Vs. Faloye (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719 @ 740 G-H.”
OUSTER OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT – ANY LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTING TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS NULL AND VOID.
“Any law purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the court would, to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution, be null and void and of no effect. See: Military Governor of Ondo State Vs. Adewunmi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.82) 280; Osagie II Vs. Offor (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 541) 205; (1998) 1-2 SC 150; A.G Ondo State Vs. A.G Federation & Ors, (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; National Union of Electricity Employees & Anor. Vs. B.P.E (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 538.”
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES -INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN MAKING A PROVISION FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO APPROACHING THE COURT FOR REDRESS
“By making provision for the resolution of disputes by the prescribed authority a condition precedent to approaching the court for redress, the intention of the lawmakers is to reduce the number of such disputes that eventually find their way into court. It is a means of alternative dispute resolution to reduce congestion of cases before the court. Such provision cannot however oust the jurisdiction of the court and confer judicial powers on the Governor or prescribed authority.”
RELIEF – WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT WHAT IS NOT CLAIMED
“There is no doubt that a court of law is not a charitable institution or Father Christmas and this court has held time and again that a court of law has no jurisdiction to grant a relief not claimed. See: A,G. Abia State Vs A.G, Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265; Agbi Vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65; Shena Security Co. Ltd. Vs. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 34 NSCQR Pt. 11, 287.”
ROLE OF A RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL -THE ROLE OF A RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL IS TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT APPEALED AGAINST
“The traditional role of a respondent in an appeal is to support the judgment appealed against. If he wants to depart from this traditional role by attacking the judgment he must file a cross appeal. See: Obasanjo Vs Buhari (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt.85O) 510 @ 554 -555; Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. & Anor. Vs Soneb Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1185) 561 @ 579. If he supports the judgment but wants it affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by the court, he must file a respondent’s notice as required by the rules of this court. See: Organ Vs N.L.N.G. Ltd. & Anor, (2013)16 NWLR (Pt.1381) 506 @ 530 C – G; Obi Vs INEC (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.378) 1116 @ 1198 – 1199; (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1046) 560”.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Northern Nigeria, Cap 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1963|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|Court of Appeal Act, 1976|Court of Appeal Act, 2004Evidence Act, Cap 112, Laws of the Federation 1990.|Plateau State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT