May 12, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013-05) Legalpedia (SC) 19211 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri May 31, 2013 Suit Number: SC. 89/2005 CORAM SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT CLARA […]
CORAM
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DANGOTE GEN. TEXTILE PRODUCTS LTDALHAJI MUSA ABUBAKARMOHAMMED LABBO DANGOTE APPELLANTS
HASCON ASSOCIATES
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent/ Plaintiff in this case brought an action against the Appellant/ Defendant for a fixed sum of money with a defined interest. The respondent/ plaintiff made an application under the undefended list which was granted by the Sokoto State High Court stating there was no contention as to the sum of money owed as prescribed by Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the Sokoto State Civil Procedure Rules. The Appellant/ Defendant delayed in filling their notice of intention to defend in due time and a default judgment was entered in favor of the Respondent/ Plaintiff. The Appellant/ Defendant consequently aggrieved appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. A further appeal has been made to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether in view of the trial court’s refusal to consider the Defendants’ affidavit, which were before him and thus denying the said Defendant fair hearing, the learned justices of the Court of Appela did not err in their view that the learned trial judge properly exercised his discretion in the case before him?
2. Whether the issue of jurisdiction was not properly raised for the first time before the learned justices of the Court of Appeal. Whether the learned justices of the court of appeal did not err in their refusal to determine the issue before them as to whether the affidavit evidence adduced by the plaintiffs/ respondents ( in view of the contradictions therein ) was adequate to support the judgment of the trial court?
3. Whether the learned justices of the court of appeal were not wrong in formulating and resolving issues suo motu in the appeal before then without giving the parties an opportunity to furnish argument on the said issue?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF COURT-SCOPE OF-LACK OF-EFFECT
Where a court acts without jurisdiction it acts in futility. This may explain the reason behind the principle that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of a proceeding even for the 1st time in this court. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION OF A LOWER COURT- INTERFERENCE WITH BY AN APPELLATE COURT
“I hasten to state the position of the law at this point which is settled that an appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial court, unless it can be shown that such exercise was either made arbitrarily (not based on any principle of law) or not in accordance with terms of justice”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC
CASES CITED
Enekebe Vs Enekene (1964) 1 ALL NLR 102 Salanke Vs Ajibola (1968) 1 ALL NLR 46 Awuse V. Odili (2004) FWLR (Pt 193) p- 325
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE