Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 02595 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Yola

Thu Jun 26, 2025

Suit Number: CA/YL/33/2024

CORAM

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal

Olabode Abimbola Adegbehingbe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Nnamdi Okwy Dimgba Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

YOHANNA DANGAL

APPELLANTS

DABO HAMMA ADAMA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

JURISDICTION, TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, FAIR HEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, NATURAL JUSTICE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from the decision of the Adamawa State High Court of Justice, Yola Judicial Division, presided over by Hon. Justice Danladi Mohammed, delivered on May 3, 2023, in Suit No. HC/ADSM/10/2021.

The suit was originally commenced in the Mubi Judicial Division of the High Court of Adamawa State on June 16, 2021, concerning three farm lands situated at Muva in Mubi North Local Government Area of Adamawa State. The case was initially before Hon. Justice Helen Hammanjoda and was later inherited by Hon. Justice Danladi Mohammed when he was posted to Mubi. Subsequently, Justice Mohammed was transferred back to Yola, and on the directive of the Chief Judge, he was requested to continue with all the cases he had inherited, including this suit.

During the proceedings, the Appellant’s counsel made several applications, including a request for the transfer of the case back to Mubi, which was pending before the Chief Judge. The Respondent complained of several efforts by the defense counsel to frustrate the case since July 2021, with no single step taken by the defense.

On March 9, 2023, the Appellant’s counsel filed a notice of preliminary objection, which was served on the plaintiff’s counsel who applied for a date to respond. On March 15, 2023, the defense counsel asked for an adjournment to file a reply to the plaintiff’s counter-affidavit, which was granted, and the case was adjourned to March 21, 2023.

However, on April 4, 2023, when the case came up, both the defendant and their counsel were not in court despite a hearing notice being served on them. According to an affidavit of service, the counsel for the defendant refused to accept service. On the application of the plaintiff’s counsel, the notice of preliminary objection was struck out, and the court proceeded to determine the matter, eventually delivering judgment in favor of the Respondent on May 3, 2023.

The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on July 24, 2023, with two grounds of appeal, seeking to set aside the judgment and order a retrial before any other court of competent jurisdiction.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed and lacked merit.

2. The judgment of the Adamawa State High Court of Justice, Yola Judicial Division, delivered on May 3, 2023, was affirmed.

3. The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, as the Chief Judge of Adamawa State had given directive and consent for the judge to continue with the cases he inherited after his transfer from Mubi to Yola.

4. The Court found that the Appellant was not denied fair hearing, as he had been given multiple opportunities to present his case but failed to take advantage of these opportunities.

5. The Court ordered the Appellant to pay costs in the sum of N500,000 (Five hundred thousand naira) to the Respondent.

6. Pages 148-160 of the record of appeal were expunged for being abusive of the process of court, as they contained extraneous papers from another suit that were not part of the proceedings.

ISSUES

The Appellant formulated two issues for determination:

1. Whether or not the Honourable Judge of the lower Court had the jurisdiction to have tried the case before him having regard to the location of the subject matter of the case, the existing valid judgment at the time of the institution of the case, the current cases that later emerged between the same parties and/or their privies for determination of title to the same land as well as the Honourable Judge’s foreknowledge of the case.
2. Whether or not fair hearing was accorded to the defendants/appellants by the lower Court which proceeded against the appellant upon a purported proof of service and struck out the appellant’s notice of preliminary objection and instantaneously proceeded to the determination of the matter without adjourning the matter for defence since the business of that day was just for hearing of the notice of preliminary objection.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ESSENCE OF APPEAL – OPPORTUNITY FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Parties need to be reminded that the essence of an appeal is to have one’s suit re-examined before a higher or independent panel, with a view to convincing such a panel in one’s favour.– Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

APPELLANT’S BURDEN – SHOWING TRIAL COURT ERROR

An appellant is expected to show on the occasion of his appeal being heard that based on settled principles, the trial Court failed to observe the principles of law as may be found in decided cases and statute. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

NATURE OF JURISDICTION – COURT’S POWER TO DECIDE

Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to decide a case or issue a decree. It is the authority the Court possesses to decide matters before it or to take cognizance of a matter presented, in a formal way, for its decision. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS

Territorial jurisdiction implies a geographic area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside which the Court has no power to act. Jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, is statutory and is conferred on the Court by the law creating it.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION – PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE

Jurisdiction is a question of law. There are two types of jurisdiction, viz: (a) jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law; and (b) jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

LIMITATIONS ON COURT JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is a legal authority, the extent of the power given to a Court by the law or statute establishing the said Court. Jurisdiction may be limited or unlimited. It may be limited locally, that is, in terms of the geographical area over which the Court’s jurisdiction may extend. It may be limited personally, as where a quorum is required for the Court to be properly constituted. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

INVOCATION OF COURT JURISDICTION – PROPER FILING REQUIREMENT

Jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine any matter is invoked by the filing of the appropriate process in the registry of the Court and by filing of a process is meant payment by the litigant of the appropriate filing fees as assessed by the appropriate or designated Registrar of the Court concerned. When a process is not duly filed before the Court, it does not, in the eyes of the law, exist and as such cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.– Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

JUDICIAL DIVISION – MATTER OF CONVENIENCE NOT JURISDICTION

The issue of judicial division is only a matter of convenience and not an issue of jurisdiction. The irregularity of hearing and determining a suit filed in one judicial division, instead of another, in civil matters, does not materially affect the merits of the case or engender a miscarriage of justice. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE – REQUIREMENT TO BE HEARD

Natural justice demands that a party be heard before the case against him is determined. Once there is an infringement of the principle of natural justice against him, then the trial is not fair. The principle of fair hearing is not a mere adjudication but a doctrine that enjoins that once a party entitled to be heard before deciding a matter is denied opportunity of being heard, the order or decision given thereon will be vacated or set aside, this is because the issue of fair hearing is constitutional and fundamental.– Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

BALANCE BETWEEN PARTIES’ RIGHTS

A party complaining that he has been denied fair hearing during the trial of a case ought to remember that in a civil case, a balance must be struck between the plaintiff’s right to have his case heard expeditiously and the defendant’s right to put across his defence to the plaintiff’s suit. Where a party has been afforded the opportunity to put across his defence and he fails to take advantage of such an opportunity, he cannot later turn around to complain that he was denied a right to fair hearing.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

TEST FOR FAIR HEARING – OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

The law is quite settled that a complaint of lack of fair hearing will only avail a party where he is able to show that he was denied the opportunity of presenting his case. Whether or not he was denied fair hearing depends on the facts and circumstances of the case… The true test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable man present at the trial and whether from his observation, justice has been done in the case.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

The Courts recognize that even a constitutionally guaranteed right of fair hearing is one which a party is at liberty to waive, if he so desires.” – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS

Abuse of process of Court simply means that the process of Court has not been used bona-fide and properly. For an action to be declared frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of the process of Court, it must be shown quite clearly that there are two or more actions between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter in one or more Courts at the same time. – Per OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2013
3. Evidence Act
4. Court of Appeal Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT