ADAMU YIDI KAWO VS THE STATE
August 20, 2025ALHAJI MOJIDI ODUTOLA V. CHIEF MOTOLANI ADEROGBA AJAO & ORS
August 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 90755 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Abuja
Tue Jul 29, 2025
Suit Number: CA/ABJ/CV/467/2021
CORAM
Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal
Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
MR ERIYO OSAKPAMWAN
APPELLANTS
1. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA
2. ALHAJI MUSTAPHA JIBRIN (VICE PRESIDENT NW)
3. COMRADE ABDULLAHI BELLO MUHAMMED (VICE PRESIDENT NE)
4. HON. ADAMU Z. JALALUDDEN (1ST NAT. ASST SEC)
5. ALH. KABIRU MOHAMMED MOGAJI (ASST. NAT. SEC)
6. ALH. DIKKO MANI (NAT. AUDITOR)
7. ALH. ISAMI A. ISAH (DEP. NAT. CH. WHIP)
8. COMRADE MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR (ASS. NAT. SEC. NW)
9. MR. BOLANLE ADENIYI (NAT. EX-OFFICIO)
10. ELDER IMOH JONAH (PLATEAU CHAIRMAN)
11. MAL. ALIYU AKABBA (KOGI CHAIRMAN)
12. IBRAHIM ISA BASHIR (PLATEAU TREASURER)
13. ALH. ILIYA KADA (KATSINA CHAIRMAN)
14. ALH. GARBA SHABIU (YOBE CHAIRMAN)
15. ALH. SALISU GARBA (TARABA CHAIRMAN)
16. ALH. AKIBO TITILAYO (ACT. OGUN CHAIRMAN)
17. PAST. SUNDAY ERAHAHON (EDO CHAIRMAN)
18. ALH. ADAMU M. BULAMA (BORNO SEC.)
19. ALH. ARMED MOHAMMED TATA (BAUCHI SEC.)
20. ALH. YAHAYA ABDUILAHI (KANO DEP. CHAIRMAN)
21. ALH. MUSA GIDADO (GOMBE SEC.)
22. ALH. MAMUDA MOHAMMED (GOMBE DEP. CHAIRMAN)
23. HON. ISHAKU YUSUF (YOBE FIN. SEC.)
24. MALLAM ISA MUSA (BAUCHI SEC.)
25. MAL. ABUBAKAR BALARABE (KANO SEC.)
26. ALH. RASAK DUROJAIYE (DEP. NAT. FIN SEC.)
27. ALH. KABIRU MAHUTA (KATSINA DEPT. CHAIRMAN)
28. ALH. SHUAIBU HAMZA (KADUNA FIN. SEC.)
29. COMRADE AKINGBADE TIWALADE (ASST. NAT. SEC.)
30. ALH. RILWAN LAMIDI (EX-OFFICIO)
31. CHIEF SEGUN JOHNSON (EX-OFFICIO)
32. ALHAJI JIMOH OGUNRAMBI (EX-OFFICIO)
33. ALH. SANI ALHASSAN (KATSINA SEC.)
34. COMRADE CHIDOZIE AUGUSTINE OLUIGBO (IMO CHAIRMAN)
35. ALH. BUNU MUSTAPHA (PLATEAU SEC.)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
INDUSTRIAL LAW, TRADE DISPUTES, JURISDICTION, ACADEMIC EXERCISE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LABOUR LAW, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st – 35th Respondents (as Claimants) instituted an action against the Appellant and Yusuf Ibrahim Adeniyi (as the 1st and 2nd Defendants) via an Amended Originating Summons, seeking determination of 12 questions and various declarations. The action challenged the ascension of the Appellant and Yusuf Ibrahim Adeniyi to the offices of National President and National Secretary General respectively of the 1st Respondent (Road Transport Employers’ Association of Nigeria) in violation of the Association’s Constitution, and sought declarations that their appointments were illegal, null and void. The Respondents sought declarations that Alhaji Musa Mohammed was validly appointed as National President following a Resolution at the Emergency Meeting of the National Executive Council held on 19th September, 2018. The National Industrial Court delivered judgment on 13th October, 2020 in favour of the 1st – 35th Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing 8 grounds of appeal. The 1st – 35th Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal had become academic as the tenure in dispute (2018-2023) had expired by effluxion of time.
HELD
1. The appeal was struck out for being academic and for want of jurisdiction.
2. The court held that the appeal had become academic since the tenure of the National officers of the 1st Respondent (2018-2023) had expired in 2023, making the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought of no practical utilitarian value.
3. The court also held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the intra-union dispute without the matter first going through the process of conciliation and arbitration as required by the Trade Disputes Act.
4. No order was made as to costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the instant Appeal has become academic and consequently, robbing this honourable Court the requisite jurisdiction to entertain same?
2. Having regards to the claims filed by the 1st to 35th Respondents at the trial Court showing the fact of intra dispute among the parties, whether the trial Court was right when it entertain the case filed by the 1st to 35th Respondents in the light of the provisions of part one of the Trade Disputes Act Chp. T8. LFN 2004?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC SUIT – THEORETICAL AND NO PRACTICAL VALUE
Speaking generally, a suit is said to be academic where it is merely theoretical, makes an empty sound, and of no practical utilitarian value to the Plaintiff, even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is also academic if it is not related to any practical situation of human nature and humanity, and so purely speculative and hypothetical. An academic suit is one which has no relevance and involves issues which have become spent and no longer of any benefit or value such that it is not worth expending judicial time, and resource on since it is simply theoretical.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
COURTS NOT TO WASTE TIME ON ACADEMIC ISSUES – JUDICIAL POLICY
It is a case such as this that judges are not to waste time on. Even if this Court had the jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal the better course would be to refrain from so doing and strike out the appeal as it would amount an academic exercise to render a decision. Resolving who won an election in 2007 for a seat in the House of Representatives whose life span ended in 2011 is a dead and buried issue after 2011, as there is no way that the successful party can have judgment enforced in 2014.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER ACADEMIC MATTERS – ADVISORY OPINIONS
The Court has no jurisdiction, and it cannot or ought not to spend judicial time in granting advisory opinion no matter how beneficial it may appear to legal scholars and the profession. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
LIVE ISSUES REQUIREMENT FOR COURT JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Once a suit no longer has live issues for determination, such a suit becomes academic, and the Courts must on no account invest precious judicial time toiling and slaving to resolve such hollow, insignificant, worthless and academic issues. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
ABANDONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL – DEEMED DISCOUNTENANCED
The settled law is that a ground of appeal from which no issue is distilled is deemed abandoned and must be discountenanced and struck out by the Court. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
EFFECT OF UNAPPEALED FINDINGS OF FACT – BINDING ON PARTIES
The effect of an unappealed finding of fact is that the finding of fact is taken to be acceptable to the parties and it becomes established between the parties and binding upon them. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATION BINDING ON MEMBERS – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
The settled law is that the constitution of an association is binding on its members.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
INTRA-UNION DISPUTES REQUIRE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT
The Trade Disputes Act is an Act of the National Assembly, which, pursuant to Section 7(3) of the NIC Act, prescribes in its Part 1 that trade disputes, including inter and intra Union disputes, must go through the process of conciliation or arbitration before such matter can be heard by the National Industrial Court as of right in appellate jurisdiction. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
COURTS LACKING JURISDICTION LACK COMPETENCE – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
It is the settled position of the law that if a Court lacks jurisdiction, then it lacks the necessary competence to entertain the claim before it.– Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ARE NULLITY – LEGAL CONSEQUENCE
If found that a Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter before it, then every order arising from proceedings conducted without jurisdiction amount to a nullity; ex nihilo nihil fit. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
COURT BOUND BY ITS OWN DECISIONS – STARE DECISIS
Suffice it for me to state the trite position that this Court is bound by its own decisions. – Per ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
ACADEMIC MATTER FOR INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT – THEORETICAL NATURE
An academic matter in a suit is one which is raised for the purpose of intellectual argument qua reason which cannot in any way affect the determination of the life issues in the matter, It is merely to satisfy intellectual prowess qua intellect. It is a matter which is theoretical and not related to practical situation. – Per EBERECHI SUZZETTE NYESOM-WIKE, J.C.A.
ADVISORY OPINIONS WITHOUT PRACTICAL EFFECT – COURT’S LIMITATION
A decision of an intermediate Court, after finding that it lacks jurisdiction, is merely an advisory opinion to the Supreme Court on what would have been our position if the preliminary objection was unsuccessful. It is nothing more than blowing a trumpet without any sound. It makes no music for the benefit of the listeners. – Per EBERECHI SUZZETTE NYESOM-WIKE, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Trade Disputes Act, Chapter T8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
2. National Industrial Court Act, 2006
3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
4. Road Transport Employers’ Association of Nigeria Amended Constitution, 2013
