CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

UMARU BUBA

 

---

YUSUFU ALH. ISA

 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent instituted an action at the Grade I Area Court Mbamnga and claimed against the Appellant, that the piece of land situates at Geroji Mbamnga and described as the Grazing land belonged to the Respondent. That his father Isa Maja took over the land in dispute from Alh. Yaji Ruwa in exchange for the land previously held by his father, and by inheritance he became the rightful owner of the land in dispute which he claimed that the Appellant trespassed into the land without his consent hence the action. In his defence, the appellant denied those claims stating that the exchange of the land in dispute was between himself (appellant) and one Alhaji Ruwa and not the facts as stated by the Respondent. At the end of the trial, the Court entered Judgment in favour of Respondent’s father, Alh. Isa Maja and accordingly declared title to the land for him. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the lower Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the Appellant had further appealed to the Court of Appeal, Yola Division by its Notice of Appeal filed with leave of Court sought and granted, which Notice contains 6 (six) Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the High Court of justice was right in law when it held that the case of the plaintiff/ respondent is competent and the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain same? Whether the High Court was right in law when it affirmed the decision of the trial Area court Mbamnga?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION – MODE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL ACTIONS IN AN AREA COURT

---

“Order 2 rule 2 of the Area Court Rules provide: “Every Civil cause shall be commenced by a complaint made in person or by the authorised representative of the person making the complaint” The Rules thus, require the person initiating the action to commence it by a complaint. A “complaint” is defined to mean a statement or inquiry or grievance laid before a court by a person or by the authorised representative of the person making the complaint for the purpose of prosecution or redress” see Shorter Oxford English Dictionary by W. Little 3rd edition, Vol. 1.Under the Area Court rules of Taraba State,Order 2 rule 2, a civil cause is commenced by a complaint made in person or by his authorised representative. This provision to my mind, does not preclude a complaint being presented orally provided that the person bringing the complaint has done all that is required of him to commence an action by the payment to the registrar of court the prescribed fees, in that instance, the action has commenced: Alawale V. Semoh (1959) NSCC 36.It is important though that upon the action being commenced the substance of the case is entered in a book kept for that purpose pursuant to Rule 3 of Order 2 of the Area Court Civil Procedure Rules. See: Fouad V. Fauzija (1971) NNLR 136. It is not being alleged that the respondent herein has not done all that isrequired of him to commence the action in this matter rather the action was not commenced by way of pleadings There is no provision for the filing of pleadings in the Area Court Rules as wrongly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. See: Sillie Vs. Mosoka (1997) Vol. 1 NWLR (Pt. 479) 98, 111; Okunrimeta V. Agitan (2012) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 565, 574; Inyaki-AbehVs. Aka agime (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 95 Avi Vs. Paiko (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 524) 335, 348-349. –

 

---

REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY – WHETHER AN ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY BEFORE THE AREA COURT

---

“By the Area Court Civil Procedure rules, Order 2 rule 2, an action can maintain in a representative capacity. In other words the persons or persons whose name is in the writ as a party has the mandate of person whose names are not disclosed in the action as parties to present or defend the action as the case may be. It necessarily follows that any order or decision of court can only be directed on the person whose name appears on the writ or process as a party and none other, even if the decision or order of court is binding on that other person by reason of the representative nature of the action. See: Olufeagba & Ors Vs. Abdul-Kareem &Ors (2009) 12 SCNJ 349.-

 

---

ORDERS OF COURT – WHETHER THE ORDERS OF COURT CAN BE DIRECTED TO PERSONS ORDER THAN PARTIES DESIGNATED IN A CASE

---

“Alh. Isa Maja in favour of whom an order of declaration of ownership was made was not designated as a party in the matter before the trial court. Persons designated as parties before the trial court are “Yusuf Isa” as the plaintiff and “Umoru Buba” as the defendant. Hence the court below was in error when it held at page 61 of the record of appeal that there is nothing wrong with the order made at the trial court in granting the relief to Isa Maja, even though not designated as a party. Everything is wrong with that finding on the principle that orders made by courts can only be directed at persons designated as parties to the proceedings, a fortiori, reliefs cannot be granted to persons other than parties designated in the case. It also amounts to granting of reliefs which are is not claimed. See: Azuh V. UBN 60 NSCQR 458, 519-520; Uku Vs. Okumgba (1974) 1 All NLR 475. –

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Area Courts Civil (Procedure) Rules of Taraba State|Area Court Law Cap. II, Laws of Taraba State, 1997|

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---