MELE ABATCHA V THE STATE
April 9, 2025MR. SAMAILA HAMMAJAUDA VS YAUBA DUHU & ORS
April 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 12758
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Thu Nov 15, 2018
Suit Number: CA/L/136/2016
CORAM
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU
PARTIES
NIGERIAN GERMAN CHEMICALS PLC APPELLANTS
ALL RAY MARITIME SERVICES LTD RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Respondent instituted a civil action in the High Court of Lagos State, wherein he claimed the following reliefs, among others: N32,095,521.29 (Thirty-two Million, Ninety-five Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty-one Naira, Twenty-nine Kobo, only) being debt owed to the Claimant by the Defendant for services rendered to the Defendant by the Claimant upon request by the Defendant. The Defendant/Appellant, duly served with the Respondent’s Originating processes, failed to file its processes in reaction to the Claimant’s suit within the time prescribed by the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a motion for an order of court, entering final judgment in favour of same, in accordance with its claims. The Respondent’s “Motion on Notice” filed simultaneously with its “Writ of Summons” and “Statement of Claim”, was brought for “summary Judgment”. The said Motion was heard after initial delay to enable both parties to reach an amicable settlement. It should be noted that the Bailiff of the lower court deposed to a “Proof of Service” of certain processes filed by the Appellant but the processes were served on the Respondent’s Counsel 48hrs before the date the Court scheduled to deliver its Ruling. The court ruled in favour of the Respondent. It is against this ruling that the Appellant has filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the failure of the lower Court to consider the Appellant’s Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim, Counter-Affidavit in Opposition to Summary Judgment and Motion to regularize its processes in the Court’s file before giving its Judgment in the case, did not occasion a miscarriage of justice?” (Ground one). “Whether it is not a denial of fair hearing in the case brought against the Appellant for the lower Court to deliver its Judgment while the Appellant’s Motion for extension of time to regularize its processes was still pending before the lower Court.” (Ground two). Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, it amounts to a denial of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing for the lower Court to deliver its Ruling while the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of time to regularize it’s processes was still pending before the lower Court as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT PROCESS – EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF A PARTY WHO HAS FILED A COURT PROCESS
“My Lords, it has long been established in a number of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, that the obligation of a party who has filed a Court’s process ends once he has done so, and that it is the internal administrative matter for the Court’s officials to ensure that such process is brought to the attention of the Court. In S.B.M. Serv. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Okon (2004) 9 NWLR (pt.879) 529, it was held that “when a document is brought to the Court Registry for filing and service fees are accordingly paid as assessed by the Registry, the party filing the document does not assume any other responsibility for the filing and service of the document, except where necessary, he is called upon by the Bailiff to act as a pointer to identify the party to be served with the document as a process of Court. It is not his duty to file the document in the Court’s file or to send it to the Judge as that is the responsibility of the Registry.”
FAIR HEARING – CRITERIA AND ATTRIBUTES OF FAIR HEARING
“Fair hearing is the touchstone of justice. And that nothing rankles the spirit and soul of a person than a resonating feeling that he was not afforded a fair hearing in a Court of law, in a matter that was decided against him in that Court. That is why, in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the hallowed principle of fair hearing is clearly entrenched and enshrined. The principle was succinctly reiterated in Rear Admiral Francis Agbiti v. The Nigerian Navy (2011) 2 SCNJI; (2011) LPELR- 2944 (SC) at Pg. 47 per Adekeye, JSC, inter alia:
The basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing are:
That the Tribunal or Court must hear both sides not only in the case but also on material issue in the case before reaching a decision.
That having regard to all the circumstances in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to have been done. The right to fair hearing is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution; any breach of it particularly in trials renders same null and void.
Further see: Rev. Fr. (Dr.) E.C.S. Obiorah v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor (2016) LPELR- 40965 (CA) @ Pg (2016) 6 C.A.R. 219; Ukaobasi v. Ezimora (2016) LPELR- 40174 (CA); Ali v. Uzoigwe & Ors, (2016) LPELR- 40972 (CA).”
COURT PROCESS (ES) – OBLIGATORY DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER ALL PROCESSES FILED BEFORE IT
“With respect to the appellant’s contention that some processes such as the appellant’s statement of defence, counter-claim and counter affidavit to the respondent’s motion on notice, for summary judgment, were not considered by the learned trial judge, before he delivered his judgment on 6th October, 2015, the law remains well settled to the effect that the court has the obligatory duty to consider all processed filed before it reaches a decision on the matter placed before it for determination between the parties. Ikpeazu v. Otti &Ors LPELR- 4005 (SC).”
NEGLIGENCE OF A COURT REGISTRY- WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE OF A COURT REGISTRY CAN BE VISITED ON A LITIGANT
“The law remains well settled to the effect that the tardiness, indolence and negligence of the court registry cannot be visited on an innocent litigate who had filed some court processes which were not brought to the attention of the judge Chukwuma Ogwe & Anor v. Inspector General of Police & Ors (2015) LPELR- 24322 (SC); Ede v. Mba (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278 236 @ 266; Cooperative and Commercial Bank (Nig) Plc v. Attorney General, Anambra State & Anor (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 201) 528.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012|
