THE STATE v. ABDULAZEEZ ALI
March 22, 2025CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. INALEGWU FRANKLINE OCHIFE & ORS.
March 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-01) Legalpedia 89872 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Mon Jan 27, 2025
Suit Number: CA/J/192/2024
CORAM
Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal
Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abiodun Azeem Akinyemi Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
1. SAMAILAA MATO
2. MAI UNGUWAN YANMA
3. LUKA DAMINA
4. YAKUBU UBANDAWA
APPELLANTS
GARBA MAIGAMO
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, LIMITATION LAW, JURISDICTION, ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS, RES JUDICATA, ESTOPPEL, LAND DISPUTE, APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In 2008, the appellants filed an action in suit no. BA/126/2008 against the respondent before the Bauchi State High Court for declaration of title to land situated at Gumau in Lame District. By a judgment delivered on the 26th of February, 2014, the appellants suit was dismissed. The respondent had no counter-claim in the case.
On the 29th of February, 2024, the respondent filed an Originating Summons before the High Court of Bauchi State in suit no: BA/59/2024 against the appellants praying for an order of possession and issuance of a writ of possession of the land subject matter of Suit No: BA/126/2008. In addition to the judgment in Suit No: BA/126/2008, the respondent also relied on an older judgment of the Bauchi State Upper Area Court which was said to have declared the respondent the owner of the land in dispute and the Judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State sitting on appeal, in suit No. BA/55A/86 delivered on the 23rd day of October, 1987, which upheld the Upper Area Court decision, both of which the appellants were not parties to.
Before filing the Originating Summons subject of this appeal, the respondent had filed an earlier one against the appellants, viz, Suit No: BA/283/2019 on the 25th of November, 2019, not for possession but for interpretation of the judgment in Suit No: BA/126/2008. The said Suit No. BA/283/2019, was struck out on the 26th of January, 2021.
Upon the contention of the appellants that the Originating Summons (in Suit No. BA/59/2024) was caught by the Limitation Law, as it was being brought after the 10 years allowed by Sections 4 and 16(1) of the Limitation Law of Bauchi State, the learned trial judge held that as the respondent had earlier filed suit No: BA/283/2019, Suit No: BA/59/2024 was not statute-barred, being merely a resuscitation of Suit No: BA/283/2019, which was filed within time. The lower Court granted the reliefs sought by the respondent in the Originating Summons for the enforcement of the judgment of the Upper Area Court as well as the judgment in Suit No: BA/126/2008 against the appellants.
HELD
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The Court found that although the High Court of Bauchi State had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s Originating Summons (as it was filed with the leave of court for extension of time), the learned trial judge was wrong in his finding that the respondent was the title holder of the land in dispute and in granting him possession.
3. The judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State delivered by S.M. SAMBOWAL J. on the 3rd day of July, 2024 was set aside and the claims of the respondent in the Originating Summons filed on the 29th day of February, 2024 were dismissed, with cost of N250,000.00 awarded to the appellants against the respondent.
ISSUES
1. Whether the High Court of Bauchi State lacks jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s Originating Summons.?
2. Whether, assuming without conceding that the action in Suit No. BA/59/2024 was not statute-barred, the Learned Trial Judge was right in his finding that the respondent was the title holder of the vast land situate at Gumau in Lame District and in giving possession to him on the strength of the judgment in suit No: BA/126/2008 (Exhibit MAIGAMO 1) and BA/55A/1986 (Exhibit MAIGAMO 2).?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LIMITATION PERIOD – EFFECT OF EXTENSION OF TIME BY COURT ORDER ON JURISDICTION:
“I have confirmed from page 67 referred by learned counsel that the order of extension of time was indeed granted to the respondent on the 5th of March, 2024 by the lower Court, pursuant to an application brought under the Judgment Enforcement Rules. Therefore, the Originating Summons though filed out of time, was so done with the leave of Court. Since that order was made by a Court of competent jurisdiction and remains subsisting having not been set aside or appealed against, it remains valid until set aside. That being the case, it is my view that the suit was properly filed. I so hold.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
EFFECT OF VALID COURT ORDER – RENDERING ISSUES OF LIMITATION ACADEMIC:
“Consequently, the questions about whether the cause of action had expired or whether the learned trial Judge was right in the way he calculated the limitation period, are no longer live issues necessary for resolution. Also, the questions of whether the provisions of the Limitation Law of Bauchi State are constitutional or inapplicable to the subject land in this appeal, are no longer necessary for determination, in my view. They have all become hypothetical or academic issues, this Court having found that the action was properly filed with the leave of Court.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
DECLARATION OF TITLE – EFFECT OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM:
“The law is very well-settled that in an action for declaration of title to land, failure of the plaintiff’s claim does not automatically confer title on a defendant who has no counterclaim.
See NWOKAFOR V UDEGBE (1963) 1 ALL NLR 104, EGONU V EGONU (1978) 11/12 SC 111, IGBOKOYI V LAWAL (2013) LPELR-22006, SANGODARE V OLADOKUN (2014) LPELR-22737, IBUDE V SADI (2021) 10 NWLR (PT 1785) 567.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
ACQUISITION OF TITLE – NEED FOR COUNTERCLAIM OR FRESH SUIT AFTER DISMISSAL OF OPPONENT’S CLAIM:
“The law remains, in my view, that the only way by which a defendant in an action in which the plaintiff’s claim for declaration for title has been dismissed can have title declared in his favor is to have filed and proved a counterclaim for title in the case. Otherwise, he will have to institute a fresh suit for declaration of title against the claimant whose claim failed and was dismissed. See NTIARO V AKPAN (1918) 3 NLR 11, EZEOKEKE V UGA (1962) 2 SCNLR 199, IKOKU V EKEUKWU (1995) 7 NWLR (PT 410) 637.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
BINDING NATURE OF JUDGMENTS – LIMITATION TO PARTIES AND PRIVIES:
“The law is settled that judgment cannot be given against non-parties, and a person who is not a party to a case cannot be bound by the judgment in the case. See NWANKWO V NWANKWO (1992) 4 NWLR (PT 238) 693, BAKARE V L.S.C.S. (1992) 8 NWLR (PT 262) 641, REYNOLDS CONST V R.B.B. (1993) 6 NWLR (PT 297) 122, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD V A-G FEDERATION (1995) 5 NWLR (PT 398) 903.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS – IMPOSSIBILITY AGAINST NON-PARTIES:
“In the same vein, a judgment cannot be enforced against a person who was not a party to the case in which the judgment was given. See A.P.C V UDUJI (2020) 2 NWLR (PT 1709) 541.” – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
PERVERSE FINDINGS – REVERSAL ON APPEAL:
“Consequently, the orders of recovery of possession and issuance of a writ of possession granted by the learned trial judge against the appellants were wrongly granted. The findings and conclusions of the learned trial judge were grossly perverse in my view and cannot be allowed to stand.”– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
AWARD OF COSTS ON SUCCESSFUL APPEAL:
“In sum, this Court finds merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is allowed. The judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State delivered by S.M. SAMBOWAL J., on the 3rd day of July, 2024 is set aside and the claims of the respondent in the Originating Summons filed on the 29th day of February, 2024 are hereby dismissed, with cost of N250,000.00 (Two hundred and Fifty Thousand naira only) to the appellants against the Respondent.” – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
CONCURRENCE WITH LEAD JUDGMENT:
“I have been privileged to have read before now the lead judgment of my learned brother, ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, JCA. For the reasons which have been lucidly and elaborately stated in the judgment, I agree that the appeal has merit. I too allow the appeal.” – Per MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
AGREEMENT WITH REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS:
AGREEMENT WITH REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS:
“The issues raised in this appeal have all been painstakingly considered and ably resolved by his Lordship. I agree with the judicial reasoning and conclusions reached in the leading judgment, and abide by the orders set out therein.” – Per PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS – ERRONEOUS FINDINGS BY TRIAL COURT:
“From all the facts and processes on the record before this Court, it is obvious that the appeal in the said MAIGAMO 2- the decision of the High Court of Bauchi State sitting on appeal over the decision of the Upper Area Court – was not filed by the present appellants (who are referred to as respondents by the learned trial judge), contrary to the above opinion of the learned trial judge. The appeal was filed by BELLO MAI ENGINE.” – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
APPELLATE COURT’S POWER TO EXAMINE RECORD FOR COMPLETE JUSTICE:
“Been a matter of record, which record is before this Court, it is my view that this Court has the power to look at it, as the law is settled that a Court has the power to look at its records if it considers it necessary to do so in the interest of justice, even if the document was not tendered or admitted in evidence or brought formally to its notice by the parties. See MOHAMMED V N.D.I.C. (2024) 14 NWLR (PT 1957) 67.” – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
APPELLATE COURT’S DUTY TO EXAMINE RECORD:
“Like a trial Court, an appellate Court such as this Court is also entitled to look at the contents of the record of appeal to resolve the matters before it. See AGBO V STATE 6 NWLR (PT 977) 545. Also, since it is so closely connected to the issue of jurisdiction which is the major bone of contention in this appeal, it is my view that this Court cannot shut its eyes against it. I have therefore decided to consider it in the interest of justice.” – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
•Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 287(3)
•Limitation Law of Bauchi State, Sections 4 and 16(1)
•Judgment Enforcement Rules
