ALHAJI ABDULGANIYU AJAGBE v. HON. ALFA BELEL
(2019)LCN/13214(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2019
CA/YL/05/2018
RATIO
JURISDICTION: A COURT WILL LACK JURISDICTION WHEN THERE HAD BEEN AN ERROR OR OMISSION ON MATTERS OF LAW
On issue one, the law is trite that where there had been an error or omission by a Court on matters of law, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to correct such errors or omissions even though apparent on the face of the Judgment or order. In other words, the extent and scope of the exercise of power of Court to correct clerical error, accidental slips or omissions should not be used as an excuse to review, reverse or rehear the case afresh as was done by the trial Court. See RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO. LTD V. AKIB (Supra) Page 492 Paragraphs D-G; FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC IDAH V. ONOJA (2013) AFWLR (Part 667)745 at 748; F.B.N. PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD. (2010) AFWLR (Part 537) 633 at 641.PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHETHER AFTER JUDGMENT, A COURT STILL HAS JURISDICTION OVER A MATTER
I agree entirely with the submissions of learned Appellant?s Counsel that the trial Judge has no Jurisdiction after delivery of the Judgment he delivered on 19th September, 2014 to invite parties in order to interpret the Judgment to them. See MBANI V. BOSI (2006) AFWLR (Part 323) 1615 at 1617 Paragraphs E-F; JIBO V. GAMBO (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A; ATANDA V. ILIASU (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A.PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALHAJI ABDULGANIYU AJAGBE Appellant(s)
AND
HON. ALFA BELEL Respondent(s)
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice of Adamawa State, Yola delivered by Nathan Musa J on 26th May, 2017. On 24th May, 2017 at about 4:25 P.M., counsel to the Appellant received a phone call from Murtala Alfa Belel (the son of the Respondent) through GSM number 08057680949. That Murtala Alfa Belel informed Desmond S. Adebole that the Honourable Judge of the High Court of Justice that delivered the Judgment in the substantive case will want to see him and the Appellant by 10:00 A.M. on the 25th Day of May, 2017 in his chambers. Pursuant to this call, Desmond S. Adebole in company of one O. N. Ededa Esq., and the Appellant went to the chambers of the Honourable Judge at about 11:00 a. m. on the 25th of May, 2017. The Appellant and his counsel were not served with any hearing notice to appear in the case. Upon entering the Judge?s chambers, the Appellant and his counsel met the Respondent and his counsel in the chambers. The Honourable Judge called for the case file and read the content of his Judgment to the hearing of the parties and their counsel.
1
Thereafter, the honourable resolved that on the 31st May, 2017, the parties, counsel and the Court will visit the locus in quo to identify the land of the parties.
On 26th of May, 2017, the Appellant?s counsel was served with an order of the trial Court dated 26th May, 2017, wherein the Surveyor General of Adamawa State or his designated staff was ordered to appear in Court to identify the land allocated to the Appellant. On 1st June, 2017, the trial Judge visited the locus in quo with the Respondent and his counsel. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 2nd June, 2017. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted on 18th January, 2018. The Appellant Brief was filed on 17th July, 2018. The Respondent did not file any Brief. I will therefore determine the Appeal on the Appellant?s Brief alone. The Notice of Appeal is predicated on five grounds thus:-
GROUND ONE
That the trial Judge erred in law when he embarked on the process of interpreting the Judgment he delivered on the 19th of September, 2014 in the case of Alhaji Abdul Ganiyu Ajagbe V. Hon. Alfa Belel Suit No. ADSY/90/2011 when he lacks the jurisdiction to do same.
2
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he embarked on a visit to the locus in quo on the 1st of June, 2017 to interpret his judgment.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused or failed to hear the application of the Appellant urging him to set aside the order he made on the 26th of May, 2017 thereby impeaching or infringing the Appellant?s right to fair hearing.
GROUND FOUR
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he acted on an oral application from the Defendant seeking for the interpretation of his judgment and thereafter proceeded to make the order it made on 26th of May, 2017.
GROUND FIVE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he said in his order made on the 26th of May, 2017 that he heard applications from the parties in Suit No. ADSY/90/2011 seeking for the interpretation of the Court?s judgment in the aforementioned suit before making the order therein.
The Appellant formulated three issues for determination from the four grounds of Appeal thus:-
1) Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to interpret its Judgment (Distilled from grounds one and two).<br< p=””
</br<
3
2) Whether the trial Court upon delivering of its Judgment in the case has not become functus officio and therefore lack the requisite jurisdiction to make the order it made on 26th May, 2017. (Distilled from grounds one, three and four).
3) Whether by virtue of the Judgment of the trial Court, the Respondent still has right, interest and or title over the land purportedly covered by Right of Occupancy No. ADS/8695. (Distilled from ground one).
On issue one, learned counsel submitted that a Judgment of a Court of law cannot be subjected to interpretation by a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. He referred to RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO. LTD. V. AKIB (2006) AFWLR (Part 327) 486 at 490. That in the instant case, the trial Judge cannot interpret his own Judgment; that by so doing the trial Court is reviewing, reversing or rehearing the case afresh. According counsel, such interpretation can only be commenced by an originating summons not by oral application. That the action cannot be by oral or written application to the Judge that delivered the Judgment. That doing so, the Appellant?s right to fair hearing will be breached. He referred to UNITY BANK PLC V. DENCLAG LTD. (2013) AFWLR (Part 695) 206.
4
On issue two, it was the submission of counsel that when a Court has disposed of a matter before it, the Court becomes functus officio as far as that matter is concerned. He cited FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC IDAH V. ONOJA (2013) AFWLR (Part 667)745 at 748; F.B.N. PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD. (2010) AFWLR (Part 537) 633 at 641. According to counsel, the lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to make the order it made on 26th May, 2017 inviting the parties and the Surveyor General, Adamawa State for the purpose of visiting the locus in quo to identify the land allocated to the Appellant in order to interpret its judgment. Reference was made to MBANI V. BOSI (2006) AFWLR (Part 323) 1615 at 1617 Paragraphs E-F; JIBO V. GAMBO (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A; ATANDA V. ILIASU (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A. Counsel submitted that the purpose of visiting the locus is to clear any doubt or ambiguity that may arise in the evidence or to resolve any conflict in the evidence as to physical features. He urged the Court to resolve the second issue in favour of the Appellant. On issue
5
three counsel submitted that from the content of Exhibit F which is the Respondent?s statement of defence and which contained the Respondent?s counter claim, it is not in doubt that the Respondent?s counter claim was for damages for trespass and injunction. That the counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.
That based on the Judgment of the trial Court of 19th September, 2014 which dismissed the counterclaim of the Respondent, the Respondent has no title, interest or right over the disputed land. That the visit to the locus to identify the land in an attempt to interpret the Judgment of the trial Court is for no moment and amounted to exercise in futility.
According to counsel, the order dismissing the Respondent?s counterclaim is final. That the only option open to the Respondent is to Appeal against the Judgment if he so wishes. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal; set aside the order of the lower Court made on 26th May, 2017 and affirm the Appellant as the title holder of the disputed land.
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
On issue one, the law is trite that where there had been an error or omission by a Court on
6
matters of law, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to correct such errors or omissions even though apparent on the face of the Judgment or order. In other words, the extent and scope of the exercise of power of Court to correct clerical error, accidental slips or omissions should not be used as an excuse to review, reverse or rehear the case afresh as was done by the trial Court. See RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO. LTD V. AKIB (Supra) Page 492 Paragraphs D-G; FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC IDAH V. ONOJA (2013) AFWLR (Part 667)745 at 748; F.B.N. PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD. (2010) AFWLR (Part 537) 633 at 641.
The Judgment of the lower Court was delivered on 19/09/2014 as can be gleaned from Pages 218 to 226. Surprisingly enough the trial Judge issued and enrolled Order dated 26th May, 2017 after hearing parties in the suit number NO.ADSY/90/2011 the subject of this Appeal seeking for the interpretation of the Court?s Judgment in the said suit. I agree entirely with the submissions of learned Appellant?s Counsel that the trial Judge has no Jurisdiction after delivery of the Judgment he delivered on 19th September, 2014 to invite parties in order to interpret
7
the Judgment to them. See MBANI V. BOSI (2006) AFWLR (Part 323) 1615 at 1617 Paragraphs E-F; JIBO V. GAMBO (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A; ATANDA V. ILIASU (2013) AFWLR (Part 869) 1219 at 1227-1228 Paragraphs G-A. The 1st and 2nd issues for determination are therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
On the 3rd issue for determination, the counter claim of the Respondent as reflected on Page 111 of the Record of Appeal is for trespass and injunction. The trial Court however dismissed the counter claim as is reflected at Pages 225 to 226 of the Record. By virtue of such dismissal therefore, the Respondent has no title, interest or right to the land. The 3rd issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The Appeal succeeds and is therefore allowed. The order of the lower Court made on 26th May is therefore set aside. The Appellant is the rightful holder of title to the disputed land. Parties to bear their respective costs.
?
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance the draft of the judgment of my learned brother Abdullahi Mahmud
8
Bayero, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at in allowing the appeal for being meritorious, I also allow same.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Bayero JCA. I agree that the appeal be allowed.
The moment a Court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and procedure laid down for it, it is no longer a regular Court but a kangaroo Court. See Edu V. Odan Community (1980) 8-11 SC 103 at 127. When the Court below embarked on the procedure complained of in this appeal, it undoubtedly was sitting as a kangaroo Court. The Court below knew that after it had delivered judgment in 2014, it had become functus officio. It is perplexing or bewildering that in 2017 about three years after it had delivered judgment, the Honourable Judge took it upon himself to invite the parties by phone call to his chambers for the purpose of interpreting the judgment and arranging for a visit to the locus in quo as well as ordering that the Surveyor General or his representative appears on the land to identify it.
9
Although the Court below is a Court of record, the 2017 proceedings especially what happened at the locus in quo were not recorded.
What the Court below did is very strange and akin only to a kangaroo Court proceeding and I do not hesitate to condemn it.
I allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Court below made on 26th May, 2017. I abide by all other orders contained in the lead judgment.
10
Appearances:
R.M. Agav
For Appellant(s)
S.P. Nadro
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
R.M. AgavFor Appellant
AND
S.P. NadroFor Respondent
