REV. JOSEPH ERKWAGH UWUESE v. REV. G. P. AZUANA & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-05) Legalpedia 33561 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

MAKURDI

Wed May 28, 2025

Suit Number: CA/MK/138/2016

CORAM

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Bature Isah Gafai Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

REV. JOSEPH ERKWAGH UWUESE

APPELLANTS

1. REV. G. P. AZUANA

2. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF N. K. S. T.

(UNIVERSAL REFORMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, EVIDENCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF, RELIGIOUS LAW, FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, ACCESS TO COURTS, ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE, APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Rev. Joseph Erkwagh Uwuese, was an ordained Pastor of the 2nd Respondent (Registered Trustees of N.K.S.T. Universal Reformed Christian Church). The Appellant had earlier commenced an action against the 2nd Respondent in Suit No. KHC/9/2015 over some grievances. Upon service of the court processes on the Respondents, they suspended the Appellant from all pastoral activities via letter dated 10/9/2015 (Exhibit JE1) on the allegation that his action of suing the church contravened the Constitution of the 2nd Respondent. The suspension was immediately implemented by the local church at Ahobee lkyurav-ya via letter dated 24/9/2015 (Exhibit JE2).

The Appellant then commenced an action by way of Originating Summons seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights, claiming that the suspension violated his constitutional rights to freedom of worship, association, and access to courts. He sought N3 million in general and exemplary damages. The Respondents contested the claim, arguing that the Appellant was only suspended from pastoral duties and not from membership or worship in the church, and that this was merely a disciplinary measure. The trial court dismissed both the Respondents’ preliminary objection and the Appellant’s suit for lacking merit. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed on eight grounds, which were later consolidated into three issues for determination.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lacking merit.

2.The judgment of the High Court of Benue State, Katsina-Ala Division, delivered on 8/3/2016, dismissing the Appellant’s claims was affirmed.

3.The Court held that the Appellant failed to prove any infringement of his constitutional rights to freedom of worship, association, or access to courts.

4.The Court found that the Appellant bore the burden of producing the Constitution of the 2nd Respondent to prove alleged inconsistency with the Nigerian Constitution, which he failed to do.

5.The Court held that there is no constitutional right to appointment or ordination as a Pastor.

6.The Court confirmed that the lower court was entitled to adopt the issues formulated by the Respondents for determination.

7.No order as to costs was made.

ISSUES

1.Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence adduced before the lower court, the lower Court was right in law in refusing to grant the reliefs claimed by the Appellant? (Distilled from Grounds 1, 4, 7 and 8)

2.Was the lower Court right in law in jettisoning the Appellant’s questions for resolution in the Originating Summons and opting for issues for resolution submitted by the Respondents in determining the Appellant’s Suit at the trial? (Distilled from Grounds 2 & 3)

3.Was the lower Court right in law in refusing to award the damages claimed by the Appellant? (Distilled from Ground 6)

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CIVIL CASES

“In Civil cases, the burden of first proving existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. However, if that party adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the Court that the fact ought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced, and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF – HE WHO ASSERTS THE POSITIVE PROVES

“In law, the evidential burden is on the person who would lose if on the state of the pleadings at the close of pleadings no evidence was called. Again, the burden of proof is on the party who alleges the existence of a fact so much so that it is he who asserts that proves. In law, it is he who asserts the positive that proves and not he who merely asserts the negative.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF – APPLICATION TO CONSTITUTIONAL INCONSISTENCY CLAIMS

“As between the Appellant, who positively asserts that some provisions of the Constitution of the 2nd Respondent was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and the Respondents who negatively asserts that no provisions of the Constitution of the 2nd Respondent was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), it is my view and I so firmly hold, that it is the Appellant, as was also rightly held by the lower Court, that bears the evidential burden of placing before the lower Court the Constitution of the 2nd Respondent to show the provisions therein that is or are inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS – VALIDITY OF INTERNAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVISIONS

“In law the mere fact that a Constitution of an Organization provides that members must first seek means of resolution within the Constitution, would not invalidate such a Constitution as being restrictive of the right of access to the Courts as guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). However, it is only where the Constitution of an Organization goes further to make such a resort to its internal means of resolution as final, then and only then it would, if sought to be invalidated as restrictive of the Constitutional right to access, be invalidated as such.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION – SCOPE AND NATURE

“The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed in Section 38 (1) is not tied to worship in a particular Church but implies a right not to be prevented without lawful justification from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious belief.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION – CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

“By Section 40 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), it will amount to illegality and be unconstitutional to refuse or deny a Citizen of this Country to opt or join or belong to any Political party, Trade Union or any other Association for the protection of his interest, both of which was not the case as presented by the Appellant against the Respondents.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

“Whilst there is a Constitutional right to freedom of Religion, Worship and Association, there is no Constitutionally recognized or guaranteed right to appointment or ordination of a Citizen as a Pastor.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

ORIGINATING SUMMONS – COURT’S POWER TO FORMULATE ISSUES

“There is no law, as erroneously thought and vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant, that compels the Court to adopt the issues as formulated by the Claimant if such issues are found not to be apt for the proper determination of all the issues joined by the parties in their processes before the Court. It follows therefore, and I so firmly hold, that the lower Court was not in any error to have adopted the issues as formulated by the Respondents as being more apt for the proper determination of all the issues joined by the parties in the processes filed by them in the Originating Summons.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

ORIGINATING SUMMONS – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS

“It is not the law, and has never ever been the procedure, that a Defendant in an Originating Summons must also, rather than formulating issues for determination, pose his own questions for the Court to answer.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

ISSUE FORMULATION – COURT’S DISCRETIONARY POWER

“A Court is at liberty, and possesses the jurisdiction, to modify or reject all or any of the issues formulated by the parties, and frame its own issues or reframe the issues formulated by the parties, if in its view, such issues will not lead to a proper determination of the case. However, to every general rule there are exceptions and thus where the issue is subsumed in another issue or is found to be irrelevant or inapt or merely obfuscating the real issues for determination, it shall not be necessary for the Court to make separate pronouncement on either each of such subsumed issues or on irrelevant and inapt issues.” – Per ELEPHANT GROUP PLC. V. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER & ANOR

DAMAGES – REQUIREMENT OF PROVED CLAIM

“Award of damages must flow from a proved claim not a claim not proved by the Claimant against the Defendant. In other words, the duty to assess and award appropriate damages is dependent on the proof of the claims of the Claimant against the Defendant, and it follows therefore, no Court would proceed to assess and award damages of any kind to a Claimant who had failed to prove his claim against the Defendant as required by law, and which claim is dismissed.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

APPELLATE INTERVENTION – WHEN JUSTIFIED

“In law the duty of evaluating and ascription of probative weight or value to evidence led is ordinarily that of the trial Court, the lower Court. Thus, it is only where the lower Court had been shown not to have properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re-evaluate the evidence in the Record of Appeal in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties.” – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

APPELLATE COURT’S FUNCTION – CORRECTNESS OF JUDGMENT VERSUS REASONS

“An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere.” – Per EDOZIE, JSC in ALHAJI NDAYAKO & ORS. V. ALHAJI DANTORO & ORS