LIGALI ADUNBI v. THE STATE
April 11, 2025SGT KALEJAIYE OLA V THE STATE
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 04111
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ILORIN
Mon Jul 9, 2018
Suit Number: CA/K/209/2014
CORAM
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
B.F.M. NY AKO FHC
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
B.F.M. NY AKO FHC
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
BIOBELE ABRAHA M GEORGEWILL-JUSTICE
B.F.M. NY AKO FHC
PARTIES
A. M. DIKKO ESQ APPELLANTS
ABUBAKAR M. MACHIKA (Carrying out Business in the Name and style of Garba Lado General Enterprises) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Defendant/Appellant maintained a legal retainership with a business outlet of the Plaintiff/Respondent Company. It is the Plaintiff’s brief that the Defendant has been harassing him claiming that the Company was indebted to the Defendant in the sum of N5, 000, 000.00, regarding the contract for the drilling of 10 boreholes in Jaba Local Government awarded to M/S Garba Lado by the Kaduna State Ministry of Water Resources in 2004. At the High Court, Pre-Trial Conference commenced and was adjourned on three consecutive occasions at the instance of the Defendant/Appellant Counsel. A further adjournment by Defendant/Appellant Counsel was refused by the court following the Respondent Counsel’s objection. The trial court thereafter entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent pursuant to Order 26 Rule 6(b) of the Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Defendant/Appellant brought an application seeking to set aside the court’s judgement. The lower court in a considered ruling refused the application. In consequence, the Appellant filed this appeal to set aside the lower court’s decision. The Respondent also filed a preliminary objection on the ground that the Appellant filed two Notices of Appeal simultaneously on the same subject matter and same parties.
HELD
Preliminary Objection Dismissed; Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower Court erred in its decision given on 4/7/13?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHETHER FILING MORE THAN ONE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FATAL TO AN APPELLANT’S RIGHT OF APPEAL
“A right of appeal is not lost, I hold, by the filing of more than one notice of appeal. What is important is that the Appellant either seeks to consolidate the notices or withdraws one of them. See Ani v Effiok (2017) 8 NWLR Part 1567 Page 281 at 307 Para B-c per Augie JSC; FRN v. Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR Part 1454 Page 141 at 167 Para G-H, 168 Para C-F; (2015) All FWLR Part 776 Page 486 at 509 Para F-G per Nweze JSC; Yaki v. Bagudu (2015) 18 NWLR Part 1491 Page 288 at 340 Para A-C; (2015) All FWLR Part 810 Page 1026 at 1075 Para D-E, per Peter-Odili JSC.”
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE – PROCEDURE FOR ADJOURNMENT IN PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
“By the Rules above, the next step, after closure of pleadings and the taking out of the pre-trial conference forms by the Plaintiff, is the pre-trial conference itself, whether properly so called or not. By these rules, all applications, scheduling orders etc. are taken at pre-trial conference. It is also clear from the records of the Court that, in compliance with the said rules, a number of motions were so taken. Appellants Counsel was thus in grave error in his submission that the subsequent adjournments granted at his instance took the matter out of the process of pre-trial conference and was for motions and mention. Admittedly, the trial judge, in stating the various adjournments at the constant requests of the Appellants Counsel, to be for pre-trial conference, ought to have stated for continuation of pre-trial conference. Not so stating and merely stating the adjournment to be for pre-trial conference, however, did not disrobe the proceedings from the garb of pre-trial conference. It was therefore not necessary for the lower Court to have given separate notification for Pre-Trial Conference, when the parties were already at pre-trial conference and the Appellants Counsel was present in Court on 5/6/12 and 7/2/13 when the proceedings were adjourned for the said Conference.”
HEARING NOTICES – WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO SERVE HEARING NOTICES WHERE COUNSEL IS IN COURT
“Where Counsel is in Court when a date is taken, it is not necessary to again serve hearing notice. See Jonason Triangles Ltd v. Charles Moh & Partners Ltd (2002) 15 NWLR Part 789 Page 176 at 192 Para D-F, per Ejiwunmi JSC.
ADJOURNMENT– ATTITUDE OF COURTS TOWARDS BOGUS ADJOURNMENTS
“Courts have resolutely set their faces against being bogged down by the antics of a party who, by his action, has voluntarily opted out of trial, and merely seeks to frustrate the hearing of a case within a reasonable time. The trial Court can thus not be faulted in its decision to refuse yet another application for adjournment and applying the penalty provided in Order 26 Rule 6 above, which provides:
6 – SANCTIONS
If a party or the party’s Legal Practitioner fails to attend the pre-trial conference or obey a scheduling or pre-trial order or is substantially unprepared to participate in the conference or fails to participate in good faith, the Judge shall:
(a) in the case of the Plaintiff dismiss the claim;
(b) in the case of the defendant enter final judgement against the defendant.
Underline Mine”
LEAVE OF COURT – WHETHER THE DISCRETION OF COURT IS INFERRED WHEN LEAVE OF COURT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
“It is trite law that whenever leave of Court is a condition precedent for a right, the discretion of the Court is implied. See Abdul Rauf Olumegbon vs Aminda Adedeji Kareem (2002) 5 SCNJ 94 at 99 100.”
ACTION – NEED FOR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY TO EXHAUST ALL AVAILABLE REMEDY PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE BEFORE GOING TO COURT
“The law however is that where a statute provides a line of action for the determination of an issue, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies provided before going to Court. See A/G Kwara v Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR Part 1546 Page 210 at 251-252 Para C-A per Peter Odili JSC; Kayili v Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1457 Page 26 at 82 Para E-F; (2015) All FWLR Part 775 Page 347 at 394 Para H per Kekere-Ekun JSC.”
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE – REMEDY AVAILABLE TO A DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM JUDGMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN DURING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
“The remedy provided by the High Court of Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules to a Defendant against whom judgment has been entered during pre-trial conference, is an application filed under Order 26 Rule 6 Supra, within the time provided or within the time as extended by that Court”.
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
High Court of Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007|
