INOGHA MFA & ORS VS. MFA INONGHA

CORAM

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONIMORI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. INOGHA MFA2. NDOMA MFA APPELLANTS

MFA INONGHA

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent, who was the father of the Defendants/Appellants, instituted an action against the Defendants/Appellants claiming title to the land in dispute. The case was adjourned severally at the instance of the Defendants/Appellants to enable them open their case. The Defendants/Appellants failed to do so and the trial Court closed the defense of the Defendants/Appellants on the application of the Plaintiff/Respondent and adjourned the matter for judgment. The Defendants/Appellants filed an application to call further evidence and stay delivery of the judgment. The application was granted and the trial Judge adjourned the matter for ruling and continuation. But on the said adjourned date, the Defendants/Appellants applied that the case should be referred to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another Judge on the ground of bias. The trial Court dismissed the application and asked the Defendants/Appellants to proceed with defense but the their counsel sought for an adjournment on the ground that he only came to court for ruling and  would like to take the result of the ruling to his master. The trial Judge refused the application for adjournment and went ahead to deliver its suspended judgment. Piqued by the trial Court’s judgment, the Defendants/Appellants appealed to Court of Appeal and subsequently to Supreme Court on the ground of fair hearing.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the trial Judge closed the case of the defendants before proceeding to judgment (Ground 3)?

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the constitutional rights of the appellants were not breached even when the trial Judge did not formally close the defendants’ case and afford them the opportunity of presenting a final address? (Grounds 4 & 5)?

3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in striking out five of the six grounds of appeal for alleged failure to formulate issues from the said grounds?”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FAIR HEARING-CONCEPT OF FAIR HEARING

“…it is equally trite that once a party has been afforded the opportunity to present his case and he fails to take advantage of it, he cannot be heard to complain that his right to fair hearing has been breached. This was made very clear in the case of: Pam & Anor. V. Nasiru Mohammed & Anor. (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1112) 1 @ 48 E – G where the concept of fair hearing was explained by Oguntade, JSC as follows: “The question of fair hearing is not just an issue of dogma. Whether or not a party has been denied of his right to fair hearing is to be judged by the nature and circumstances surrounding a particular case. The crucial determinant is the necessity to afford the parties every opportunity to put their case to the court before the court gives its judgment. … A complaint founded on denial of fair hearing is an invitation to the court hearing the appeal to consider whether or not the court against which a complaint is made has been generally fair on the basis of equality to all parties before it.” PER KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

FAIR HEARING-PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING

“The process of fair hearing is a two-edged sword and it cuts both ways – appellants have a right to a fair hearing and fair hearing implies also that the respondent as plaintiff is entitled to have his case determined within a reasonable time. The right of the two parties must be balanced; one cannot be sacrificed to the other without perverting justice. On the facts of this case, I hold that the appellants could not substantiate their allegation of denial of fair hearing.” PER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT-WHETHER AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT CAN BE DENIED BY THE COURT

“…the need for Counsel to take the message, whatever the message is, does not constitute application, based on valid grounds, for adjournment. Also continuous absence of Counsel in a case he is handling as shown in the record of the trial Court amounts to obstruction of the cause of justice and therefore contempt of Court. See McKown v. R (1971) 16 DLR 390; Izuora v. R (1953) 13 A WACA 313. When an application for adjournment is unnecessary or not reasonable, the Court may deny same and proceed with the case.” PER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

FAIR HEARING-WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO DEFEND HIS CASE-EFFECT OF

“A party cannot be compelled by the court to present or defend his case when he has no such desire. In the circumstances where a party refuses or neglects or fails to take advantage of the fair hearing environment so created by the court, he (the party in default) cannot be heard to accuse the court of a denial of his right to fair hearing. He has himself to blame”.
PER ONNOGHEN, J.S.C

FAIR HEARING-WHAT DETERMINES IF A HEARING HAS BEEN FAIR

“In order to determine whether the hearing has been fair, the test to be applied is the impression of a reasonable man present at the trial and whether from his observation justice was done in the case” PER KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING-WHETHER A PARTY WHO REFUSES OR FAILS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FAIR HEARING ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY THE COURT CAN ACCUSE THE COURT OF DENYING HIM FAIR TRIAL

“The right to fair hearing entrenched in S.36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in its first pillar of justice is the Audi alterem partem which means “hear the other party”. The Court has no business pursuing a recalcitrant party in order to hear him. All the Court is required to do is to create an enabling environment for the party to present his case and be heard. A party who refuses or fails to take advantage of the fair hearing environment created by the Court cannot accuse the Court of denying him fair trial.” PER NGWUTA, J.S.C

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES-WHETHER MORE THAN ONE ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL

“The Court frowns at proliferation of issues for determination distilled from grounds of appeal. An issue arises from one or more grounds of appeal. See Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566. It is proliferation of issues to raise more then one issue from a ground of appeal.” PER NGWUTA, J.S.C

CASES CITED

 Izuora v. R (1953) 13 A WACA 313 ACB Ltd. v. Joseph Agbunyim (1960) 5 JSC 19Tsokwa Motors (Nig.) Ltd. V. U.B.A. Plc. (2008) All FWLR (pt. 403) 1240 @ 1255 A-B; Adigun v. A.G. Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53) 674;Okafor v. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 3 NWLR (pt.200) 59;Leaders & Co. Ltd. V. Bamaiyi (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 329Abubakar Audu V. FRN (2013) 53 NSCOR 456 @ 469Shonekan v.  P. G. Smith(1967) 1 All NLR 329 at 333 Odusote v. Odusote (1971) NMLR 228.”Pam & Anor. V. Nasiru Mohammed & Anor. (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1112) 1 @ 48 E – GEffiom V. The State (1995) 1 SCNJ 1;Muhammed V. Kano N. A. (1968) 1 ALL NLR 424:Unibiz (Nig.) Ltd. v. C.B.C.L. Ltd. (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt.816) 402 @ 432 – 433 C – B; (2003) 2 SC 23.Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566.Aliu Bello v. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 826 at 886. Kwara State Ministry of Health v. M. I. Electrical Enterprises (2011) All FWLR (pt.602) 1757

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT