ISHAYA SANSANI V. THE STATE
March 27, 2025SPEAKER, NASARAWA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ANOR V. OCHA P. ULEGEDE, ESQ
March 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-04) Legalpedia 54935 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT MAKURDI
Fri Mar 25, 2022
Suit Number: CA/MK/252/2017
CORAM
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
OSU (DR) AUGUSTINE JATAU (AMB)
APPELLANTS
PRINCE ISHAKU DAHILO AUTA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, CHIEFTAINCY MATTER, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LOCUS STANDI, PARTY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant commenced an action at the High Court of Justice of Nasarawa State sitting at New Karu, wherein he claimed a declaration that it is now the turn of Zone B to produce the next Dadayako of Dadayako Chiefdom after the death of His Royal Highness, Osu Dahilo Auta, who died on the 3rd day of February, 2014.
Upon being served with the Writ of Summons, the Defendants, by the leave of Court filed their memorandum of appearance. At the hearing, the 1st -5th Defendants filed a notice of preliminary objection, which was upheld by the trial Court and the names of the 1st – 5th Defendants were struck out from the suit and the 6th Defendant then became the sole Defendant (now the Respondent in this Appeal). After the conclusion of trial, the Court below delivered its Judgment against the Plaintiff by dismissing his claim. The Appellant aggrieved by the decision filed the original Notice of Appeal, which was subsequently, amended.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether considering the facts and the circumstances of the case the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant is not from Dadayako Chiefdom.
Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant has no locus standing to institute this action
Whether the trial Court was right when it proceeded to determine the substantive matter when it held that the Appellant have no locus standi but entered judgment for the Respondent and dismissed the Appellant’s case instead of striking out.
Whether considering the circumstances of this case the trial Court did not misdirected itself when it relied heavily on the 2011 Law in reaching or arriving at its conclusions despite the existence of the extant Law of 2013 applicable to Dadayako Chiefdom.
Whether the Trial Court did not misdirected itself when it relied heavily on and attached evidential value to documents that were not pleaded and not duly certified to arrive at its conclusion.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IS IN A POSITION TO DRAW INFERENCE FROM THE DEMEANOR OF WITNESSES
“It is settled law that the trial Court who saw and heard witnesses are in a better position to comment on the demeanor of witnesses in the instant case the statement of the learned trial Judge that she believe the evidence of DW1 to be truth, credible and convincing and rely on same is within the bounds of the law. See Ugochukwu Ngorka v. The Attorney General, Imo Sate (2014) LPELR-22532 (CA)”. PER M.S.HASSAN, J.C.A
WHETHER A PARTY CAN APPROBATE AND REPROBATE
“A party cannot approbate and reprobate. It does not make good sense. See Anyadube v. Nigeria Renowned Trading Company (1990) LPELR-SC.PER M.S.HASSAN, J.C.A
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Nasarawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2010
