CORAM

---

ALEXANDER, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

WALI

IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)

---

PARTIES

---

MAAJI GALADIMA APPELLANTS

---

ALHAJI ADAMU TAMBAI & ORS RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Ma’aji Galadima, the son of Galadima Cino (deceased) claimed that a farmland that his late father cleared and later loaned to the Respondents had not on demand been returned to him. It was before Area Court No. 1 in Zaria City. The 13 Defendants, now Respondents denied any loan of the farmland and claimed that they inherited the land from their various parents. In his evidence in court the Plaintiff claimed that he Mato, Kakumi Doki Kakumi, Dan Mallam Kakumi, Wada Kakumi Makarfi and Wada Makeri who were alive were neighbours on the land and that they cleared their portions of land at about the same time with Galadima Cino. The Appellant’s claim, in reality is that his father gave the disputed land to Sarkin Gwanki, Haruna, on loan so as to in turn allocate to the Defendants. The Defendants admitted they farmed on the land and it was in their possession, but claimed it was Sarkin Gwanki Haruna that gave them the land some 47 years ago when it was bush, and that they cleared it. They disputed the Plaintiff’s claim that it was only seventeen years ago Sarkin Gwanki Haruna had died, and it was his son Usman that gave evidence in court as DW1. In the end, the Area Court gave judgment for the Plaintiff. Against this decision, an appeal was lodged at the Upper Area Court, Ikara. It must be explained that the Plaintiff had once sued successfully the Sarkin Gwanki, who was the village head, on the same land. This properly influenced the Area Court Grade 1’s decision. The Ikara Upper Area Court set aside the decision of Area Court 1, Zaria City on seven reasons proposed by it including the failure of trial court to allow the Defendants’ witnesses to testify. Against this the Plaintiff’s appeal was lodged at the High Court which came to the conclusion that the failure to hear evidence from some witnesses for the Defendants and the manner of administering oath under Moslem Law which he held was flawed, he therefore ordered a retrial. An appeal was lodged to Court of Appeal where the Defendants filed a notice of preliminary objection to the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Area Court No.1 Zaria city has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim, and dismissed the appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the respondents in this instant appeal, in their effort to set aside all the judgments of the High Court, Upper Area Court and trial Zaria City Area Court can in their capacity as respondents in the Court of Appeal, employ the avenue of a notice of preliminary objection to achieve its desire and cause (as it eventually succeeded in doing) the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal and set aside all the judgments of the lower courts? Whether in the peculiar circumstances of this appeal, the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial court which one way or the other would have an effect on the judgments of all the other courts could completely be raised after the same issue had been raised inter-alia before the Upper Area Court which discountenanced same and decided the appeal on the merits and the respondent failed to appeal against such a treatment by the Upper Area Court? Whether the issue of jurisdiction raised herein can be taken suo-motu by the Court of Appeal and if answered in the affirmative, what is the appropriate consequential order to make in the circumstances?”

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AREA COURTS – WHETHER AREA COURTS ARE BOUND BY STRICT PROCEDURE PECULIAR TO ENGLISH COMMON LAW COURTS

---

“The Area Courts are not bound by strict procedure peculiar to English Common Law Courts. Thus the complainant before them needs even not lodge his complaint in writing; it is enough for him to verbally tell the court what his grouse is but this must be recorded by the judge or court clerk in writing. There is no strict formula for filing a complaint. The Area Courts are what one may call grassroots courts, with cheap procedure and expeditious hearing of the matters before them thus making them not only the nearest courts to the people (or Common Man) but also cheapest fora for litigants.” –

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHETHER THE LEAVE OF COURT MUST BE SOUGHT WHERE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS ENTIRELY NOVEL

---

“In cases where the matter of jurisdiction is entirely novel the leave of court must be sought in a proper application before it could be argued so that the other side will not be taken by surprise or be embarrassed.”-

---

COMPETENCE OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT COMPETENT?

---

“It is well settled in many decisions of this court that a court is competent when the subject matter of the case is within jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction. See Madukolu & Ors. v. Nkenzdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt.4)587.” –

---

JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION

---

“Issue on the court’s jurisdiction is very pivotal and fundamental. Because of its fundamental nature, on the authorities, it can be raised at any stage of the trial or even on appeal, and even before the apex court. The reason for this latitude to jurisdiction issue is obvious. A court that lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit, either as a trial or appellate court, is incompetent to pronounce a judgment in respect of any aspect of the matter in controversy before it. Time never runs against a court to decide on the issue of jurisdiction. The consequence of a court continuing a case where it lacks jurisdiction is, as it were, like the court embarking on a frolic which would indisputably result in a nullity for which an appellate court, so invited, would have no compunction whatsoever to declare null and void. Jurisdictional question, be it in criminal or civil matter, has this same devastating consequence. An attack or question as to jurisdiction cannot be properly glossed over by any court Once it is raised by the defendant or the respondent. The procedure by which such a fundamental issue is raised may not be in consonance with the stipulated rules of court for questioning a decision of the court, nevertheless, that will never be allowed to defeat the right to question the jurisdictional defect. To do so is unwittingly to postpone the doom’s-day. See Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd. v. John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 550, Ezomo v. Oyakhime (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.2) 195, State v. Onagoruwa (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.221) 33, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt.4) 57 and Okafor v. A.-G., Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659.”

---

JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT WITH RESPECT TO A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“It is necessary to caution that whenever there is a challenge to jurisdiction the court should expeditiously attend to it in limine, particularly if the case is at the trial stage and even if the case is at the appeal stage, as is the case in the appeal in hand. Finally, it is important to state that jurisdictional issue being so pivotal can be raised suo motu by the court so long as the parties are accorded the opportunity to react to the issue. No doubt, the proper way for the respondents to question any aspect of a judgment that is substantially in his favour is to file a cross-appeal or file a respondent’s notice with regard to that complaint. A preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal is a special procedure whereby a respondent may contend the competence of the appeal which, if upheld, has the effect of striking out the appeal. Such is the intendment of Order 2 Rule 9(1) of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended in 1999). Be that as it may, it seems quite clear that a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction is, as earlier noted, pivotally fundamental and can pass as sui generis in terms of the procedure adopted to raise it.” –

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHETHER ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEDINGS

---

“It is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction can be taken up in the Supreme Court, or before the Court of Appeal or the High Court at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. See Barclays Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 6 SC 175; Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; Ejiofodomi v. Okonkwo (1982) 11 SC 74; Swissair Transport Co. Ltd. v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (1991) 1 All NLR 37. It can also be raised by the court suo motu see Osadebay v. A. G. Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.169) 525; Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd. v. John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 550; Okesuji v. Lawal(1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.170) 661; Kato v. C.B.N. (1991)9 NWLR (Pt.214) 126; Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 195; Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 508.” –

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

---

“The fundamental nature of the issue of jurisdiction in court proceedings has been echoed in many cases in this court. In the case of State v. Onagoruwa(1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.221) 33 at page 48, Uwais JSC (as he then was) said:-
“It has been said times without number that the issue of jurisdiction of a court is fundamental. Its being raised in the course of proceedings can neither be too early or premature nor be too late. For if there is want of jurisdiction; the proceedings of the court will be affected by a fundamental vice and would be a nullity however well conducted the proceedings might otherwise be. See Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989)4 NWLR (Pt.114) 172 at 187 and Onyema v. Oputa (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 259”.
In a similar mood, in the case of Funduk Engineering Ltd. v. McArthur (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.392) 640 at page 651, this court held:
“The issue of jurisdiction … is so fundamental that if the court below eventually …found that the trial court after all lacked jurisdiction, then the whole judgment which is the by-product of such a trial becomes a nullity, no matter how well conducted. See Madukolu & Sons v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341” ..
This therefore makes it obvious that whenever the jurisdiction of a court is challenged or objected to in any proceedings and at any stage, it is the duty of that court to deal timeously with the challenge or objection before deciding on the next course of action. See Okafor v.A. G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659; Olaniyi v. Aroyehun (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt.194) 652;Obikoya v. Registrar of Companies (1975) 4 SC 31; State v. Onagoruwa (supra). –

---

LACK OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT WHERE THE CHALLENGE TO THE DECISION OF A COURT IS FOUNDED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION

---

“It is my respectful view that in any case where the challenge to the decision of the court is founded on lack of jurisdiction, the court is bound to consider such challenge which goes to the root of the matter showing that the court has acted without jurisdiction see Adeigbe v. Kushimo (1965) 1 All NLR 248. And a party to a litigation cannot in my view be shut out and the court precluded from entertaining a matter on “technical ground” particularly where the issue of jurisdiction is concerned.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Act 1976|Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended.|Supreme Court Rules (as amended in 1999)|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT