CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

1.USMAN HAMMA’ADAMA MAPEO

2.SIR CHRYSANTHUS DOKE

3.MALLAM ABBAS HAMMA’ADAMA

4.MR. PAUL RAYMOND

5.MALLAM DAHIRU MUSA

6.MR. DONATUS DAVID

7. MALLAM ABUBAKAR JODA

8.MR. JOSEPH DOKE(FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OFGBANBU PATRI CLAN OF MAPEO)

APPELLANTS 

---

GANYE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants instituted this suit by a writ of summons dated 22nd August, 2013 against the Respondents in the High Court of Adamawa State holden at Yola. The claim of the Appellants against the Respondents is for a declaration that the ancestors of Gbanbu Patri clan were the original founders, settlers, owners and paramount rulers of Mapeo land in Jada Local Government Area of Adamawa State and therefore the Gbanbu Patri clan is the legitimate heir to the District Headship of Mapeo, same being the Highest Chieftaincy stool in the present Day Mapeo land among other reliefs.

Hearing of the suit had commenced before the Appellants brought an application for:

i) An order setting aside the proceedings in the case relating to the partly heard evidence of PW1.

ii) An order closing pleadings in the case and directing the parties to go into pre-trial conference.

iii) An order directing the Plaintiffs/Applicants to file Forms 23 and 24 for pre-trial conference.

iv) An order deeming the Plaintiffs/Applicants Forms 23 and 24 for pre-trial conference attached thereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” as properly filed and served.

The said application was granted.

The Respondents filed a motion dated and filed 8th October, 2015 for the following:

a) “An order setting aside the lower Court’s ruling of 22nd October, 2014 foreclosing the applicants from entering their defence in these proceedings.

b) An order allowing the Applicants to move their application an order extending time within which the Appellants can file their statement of defence and written address filed on 5/2/2014 still pending in court.

c) Any other order or orders as the honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.

The Appellants filed a counter affidavit to the motion on notice. On 28th October, 2015 the lower Court heard the Respondents’ application and ruled that it is in the interest of fair hearing for all parties that it will allow this application.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the Appellants has filed the instant appeal vide a Further Amended Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial judge from all peculiar circumstances of this case wrongly exercised his discretion to grant the 1st, 2nd , 7th and 11th Respondents leave to enter their defence to the Appellants’ case and whether the Appellants have been denied fair hearing in the conduct of their case when no evidence had been led by the Appellants at the time the leave to enter defence was granted the 1st, 2nd, 7th and 11th Respondents.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RELIEFS- WHETHER A COURT CAN GRANT RELIEFS NOT SOUGHT BY A PARTY

---

“It is settled law that a Court must not grant to a party a relief which he has not sought. In our adversary system a Court makes orders on the quarrel or dispute raised by the parties. Where a Court grants to a party a relief which it did not seek it has made an order on a dispute not raised by the party. This will be an order made without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant to a party that which he does not claim. See Okoko V. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401 Oduwole V. West (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 598 Odofin & Anor V. Agu & Anor (1992) NWLR (Pt. 229) 350 and Fasikun & Ors V. Oluronke II & Ors (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 589) 1.” – Per ABIRIYI, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2013 of Adamawa State

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT