CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

PRINCE JOHN KEGAR DANJUMA UMAR

---

WUKARI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant who is a prince and a family member of Matarfada District, Wukari Local Government Area of Taraba State was the Plaintiff at the Taraba State High Court, while the Respondents were the Defendants. After the demise of Gambo Sule the District head of Matarfada, the 1st and 2nd Respondents 7 appointed the 3rd Respondent as acting District head of Matarfada District. Aggrieved with the failure of the Respondents to appoint a substantive District head for Matarfada District, the Appellant commenced a suit by way of writ of summons against the Respondents claiming a declaration that the failure and continues refusal by the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to appoint District Head for Matarfada District of Wukari Local Government Area, Taraba State to replace late Chief Mallam Gambo Sule in accordance with the provision of Section 3 of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap 26 Laws of Taraba State is unlawful, wrongful and oppressive. The Appellant also sought other declaratory and injunctive reliefs including damages. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground that the case was Statute Barred. The lower court upheld the objection and dismissed the case of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, the Appellant filed this Appeal contending that the court determined the substantive case at the interlocutory stage, which renders the entire proceedings a nullity.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial Judge in determining the Preliminary Objection has decided the substantive case before him

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPLICATION BEFORE THE COURT – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON EVERY APPLICATION BEFORE IT

---

“It is trite that once there is a competent application before a court of law, the court is duty bound to hear and determine same – Afro Continental Nig. Ltd & Ors. v. co-Operative Association of Professionals Inc. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 303 at 317-8 Paragraphs F-B where the Apex Court held that:-
“It is mandatory that a court must make a decision and pronounce on every application which is before it; and failure to do so is a breach of the right of fair hearing.”
See further the case of Fajimolu v. University of Ilorin (2007) 2 NWLR (pt. 1017) 74 and Adigun v. Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516.

---

PERIOD OF LIMITATION – DETERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN AN ACTION

---

“The period of limitation is determined by looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim ONLY to ascertain the alleged date the wrong in question which gave rise to the Plaintiff’s cause of action was committed and comparing such date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed,
If the date/time on which the writ of summons/statement of claim was filed is beyond the period allowed by the limitation law, the action is statute barred. See C.I.L. Risk Management Ltd. v. Ekiti State Government & Ors (2020) LPELR – 49565 (SC), Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 47) 1 at 20, Woherem v. Emereuwa (2004) 6-7 (SC) 161 and savannah bank of Nigeria ltd v. pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agency Ltd (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212.” –

---

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – DUTY ON COURTS NOT TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF A CASE WHEN DECIDING AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION

---

“In the case of Konduga L.G.C. VS. N.U.R.T.W & Ors (2013) LPELR 23355 (CA) 16 – 17, Paragraphs B – E. This Honourable Court per Omoleye, JCA, eloquently stated the position of the law thus:
“It is settled law that Courts do not decide the merits of a case at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings.
This Court in the case of Dehinsilu V. Mondec Pharmacy Ltd. (2002) LPELR- 3547, held per Lokulo-Sodope, J.C.A., that:
Surely, the law is immutable that a Court in deciding an Interlocutory application should not delve into the merit of the case or pre-determine the issues to be tried at the hearing of the case. See Mrs. Gloria Nya v. Madam Eme Bassey Edem (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 242) 576.
Also in the case of Adamu v. Suemo (2007) LPELR -4468, I had the privilege of writing the lead judgment therein. Most humbly, it was and is still my view that a trial Court has the duty to carefully ensure that its ruling on an interlocutory matter does not render nugatory the substantive suit. It has been stated and restated, that indeed lower Courts should not, in a ruling in an interlocutory application, make orders, which have the effect of pre-judging or pre-emptying the issues for adjudication in the substantive suit before trying the suit. Where the Courts err and decide the substantive matter at the interlocutory stage, the penalty of an appellate Court for such an error is, a setting aside of the outcome of the determination. In which case, such improper determination by the erring lower Court would be tantamount to a futile and wasted exercise. On this legal principle, the law reports are replete with a plethora of authorities: see but to mention a very few, the case of: (1) Ojukwu v. Yar Adua (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) p. 50 and (2) Shinning Star Nig., Ltd. V. Ask Steel Nig. Ltd. (2011) 4 LPELR 3051.”

---

STATUTE BARRED ACTION – APPROPRIATE ORDER TO MAKE WHEN AN ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED

---

“Whether the action was statute barred is a preliminary objection to the hearing of the matter. Once the court finds that the action is statute barred, what follows is a dismissal of the action.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 26 Laws of Taraba State.|Public Officers (Protection) Law, Cap 115, Law of Taraba State.|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---