ADEDAPO v. ONWUERINGO
(2020)LCN/14916(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, December 18, 2020
CA/A/59A/2017
RATIO
CLAIM: BINDINGNESS OF THE CLAIM ON THE COURT
It is settled beyond citing of authorities that a Court is bound by the claim filed by the Claimant, see UNIJOS V IKEGWUOHA (2013) LPELR-20233(SC) which held thusly:
”It is the law that for a party to be awarded any relief by a Court of law, that party must not only plead with particularity but also prove by credible and convincing evidence that he is indeed entitled to the relief he seeks. There is a plethora of case law on this very important subject matter. In PETER ADEBAYO ODOFIN & ANOR v. CHIEF AGU & ANOR (1992) 3 NWLR (PART 229) 350 this Court stated categorically that Courts ought not to play the role of Father Christmas which can go round granting to parties reliefs which they have not asked for. Let me state without any fear of contradiction that the “free giving” Father Christmas no longer exists if he ever existed as parents pay indirectly for the “gifts” which their children appear to get freely. See also CHIEF N. T. OKOKO v. MARK DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR (PART 1000) 401; AYANBOYE v. BALOGUN (1990) 5 NWLR (PART 151) 392 at 413; IGE v. OLUNLOYO (1984) ALL NLR 150; ATSER v. GACHI (1997) 6 NWLR (PART 570) 609 at 630; LADOKE v. OLOBAYO (1992) 8 NWLR (PART 261) 605 at 619 – 630; AWOSILE v. SOTUNBO (1992) 5 NWLR (PART 243) 514. The list of authorities on this subject matter is in exhaustive and are all to the effect that a Court of law has no jurisdiction to grant to a party that which he has not asked for. It is an old legal principle and is quite sacrosanct. A claim that is vague and lacks certainty is no claim at all.” Per ALAGOA, J.S.C PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is fundamental and a Court must possess it before it can take a step in the matter, see EAGLE SUPER PACK (NIG) LTD V ACB PLC (2006) LPELR-980(SC) wherein the apex Court said:
“It is elementary law that a Court is bound by the relief or reliefs sought. The generosity or charity of a Court of law is confined strictly to the relief or reliefs sought to the extent that a Court of law cannot give to a party what he did not claim. That is completely outside our procedural law. The rational behind this is that a party who comes to Court knows where the shoe pinches him and therefore knows the limits of what he wants. The Court, as an unbiased umpire, so to say, cannot claim to know the relief or reliefs better than the party and give him over and above what he has claimed. While a Court has jurisdiction to award less than what a party claims, it has no jurisdiction to award more than what he claims.” Per TOBI ,J.S.C. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.
CLAIM: WHETHER THE COURT CAN AWARD IN EXCESS OF WHAT A PARTY SEEKS AS RELIEFS
A Court can award less than what a party claims but cannot award in excess of what a party seek as reliefs before the Court. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: EFFECT OF THE GRANT OF A DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION TO A PARTY
It is the law that once a declaration is made in favour of a party and an injunction also granted, the Court has no business going into other issues in respect of the same land claimed. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
M.A. ADEDAPO – CROSS-APPELLANT APPELANT(S)
And
CHIDI ONWUERINGO (FATHER CHIDI) – CROSS-RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Cross Appeal is against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Gwagwalada delivered by HON. JUSTICE M. BALAMI on the 28th April, 2016 wherein the Court below granted the Cross-Appellant the entire reliefs then went ahead to make an order that the Cross-Appellant should pay the cost of the structure erected by the Cross Respondent. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Cross-Appellant filed this Cross- Appeal.
The Cross-Appellant’s Brief of argument is dated 15th March, 2018 and filed on the 23rd March, 2018. It formulated 1 issue thus:
1. Whether the trial Court was right in granting reliefs not claimed?
The Cross-Respondent’s Brief of argument is dated 30th July, 2018 and filed on the 18th September, 2018. It formulated 1 issue thus:
1. What is the effect of granting a relief that was not claimed or sought?
CROSS-APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION ON ISSUE ONE
The Cross-Appellant argued that when a Court makes an order on an issue not raised by the parties, such order is made without jurisdiction and therefore a
1
nullity. She cited ODOFIN V. AGU (1992) NWLR (PT. 229) 350; ODUWOLE V. WEST (2010) NWLR (PT.1203) 598 SC; FASIKUN V. OLURONKE (1999) 1 SC 16, (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 589) 1; OLAOPA V. O.A.U ILE-IFE (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 512); IKOKU V. EKEUKWU (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 410) 637; INCAR (NIG) LTD V. BENSON TRANSPORT LTD (1975) 3 SC 81 and OBU & ORS V. ONIBUDO & CO. LTD & ORS (2009) LPELR-8255(CA) 15 to support her submission that a Court must not grant a party relief it did not sought even if it is suggested in written or oral address, it cannot be granted having not been sought. The Cross-Appellant submits that where a trial Court made a declaration of title to land and grant an injunction in favour of a party on the same need not make any further orders in respect of any structure built on the land by the other party because by the Latin maxim “quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit” accrues to the party in whose favour title to the land is declared as held in ORIANWO V. OKENE (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 786) 193, DANTSOHO V. MOHAMMED (2003) 6 NWLR (PT. 817) 490 and REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MASTER’S VESSEL MINISTRIES (NIG.) INCORPORATED V. EMENIKE & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42836 (CA).
2
In the above cases, the Court state that once a party is declared owner of a land in dispute, he automatically own whatever is attached on the said land.
The Cross-Appellant also argued that nowhere in all the pleadings of parties that they sought for settlement of the cost spent by the Cross-Respondent in erecting the said shops which the trial Court ordered in its judgment. Reliefs are the corner piece of the house and upon it judgment granted is accommodated. Such orders made by the trial Court cannot be termed consequential orders, referred to the case of HON. JUSTICE OYEYEMI (RTD) & ORS V. HON. TIMOTHY OWOEYE & ANOR (2017) SC. Therefore, the appeal to sentimental order of the trial Court cannot vest jurisdiction to grant relief not sought, cited OKWARA AGWU & OR V. JULIUS BERGER (NIG.) PLC (2011) LPELR-4731(CA). There is no premise upon which the trial Court derived its sentiment by granting reliefs not sought by either party. It is even more interesting that both parties to this appeal are challenging this order of the Court not sought for at all by either party as it can be seen in ground one
3
of the Cross-Respondent additional grounds of appeal.
The Cross-Appellant urge this Honourable Court to expunged last portion of the trial Court judgment complained of.
CROSS-RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION ON ISSUE ONE
The Cross-Respondent argued that the Cross-Appellant submits that “a Court make orders on the lis or issue raised by parties…”. In DALFAM NIG. LTD V. OKAKU INTERNATIONAL LTD 15 NWLR (PT. 735) 203, the Court of Appeal held that “once a Court lack jurisdiction, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted, they are void”. The Cross-Respondent urge this Honourable Court to hold that the order made by the trial Court is null, void and of no effect whatsoever. He cited SKEN CONSULT LTD V. UKEY (1981) SC 6 and UAC V MCFOY (1962) AC 152 to support his submission.
Continuing his submission, the Cross-Respondent urge this Honourable Court to discountenance the argument of the Cross-Appellant as the grounds for the cross-appeal is predicated on the main appeal. There is no way the cross appeal can succeed if the main appeal is allowed. The Cross-Respondent states that in his Appellant’s Brief and
4
Reply, he raised weighty issues such as:
1. The trial Court deliberately ignored to make pronouncement on the issued raised and canvassed before it.
2. The trial Court relied on unpleaded fact and admitted inadmissible documents without hinging their admissibility on any known law.
3. Raising an issue Suo Motu without asking parties to address it, giving effect to the contents of a survey plan which was not tendered and not recording proceedings at the visit to the locus in quo.
The Cross-Respondent argued that if this Honourable Court looked at the issues raised, it will reverse the injustice perpetrated by the Court below. Once the main appeal is allowed the cross-appeal will have to be dismissed. Allowing the cross-appeal will tantamount to putting something on nothing. It will not stand as held in UAC V. MCFOY (Supra). The doctrine of quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit which was canvassed by the Cross-Appellant does not apply to this case as the Cross Respondent did not build on the Cross-Appellant’s land.
The Cross-Respondent further submits that by the facts canvassed above the Court will be compelled to allow the main
5
appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss the Cross Appeal because allowing it will be tantamount to endorsing the injustice perpetrated at the lower Court.
RESOLUTION
Upon a careful review of the Notice of Appeal, the Record of Appeal and the briefs of both counsels adopted at the hearing of the appeal, the Court is inclined to adopt the sole issue distilled by the Cross Appellant as the issue for determination in this appeal. Coincidentally, the Cross Respondent’s issue is the same except for the slant to reflect the interest of the Cross Respondent.
The Court below gave possession and customary title of the land in dispute to the Cross Appellant as the reliefs claimed and then proceeded to also make an unsolicited order, it held thus:
“that the defendant having built on the said piece of land some shops which he has been collecting rents over the shops for a number of years up to 15 years without any quarrel from the Plaintiff and the fact that the defendant having agreed to pull down two of the shops built on the land to forgive way for the Plaintiff’s business the Honourable Court holds that the defendant is a peaceful
6
person who needed an assistance from the Honourable Court and the Honorable Court now ordered that an independent quantity surveyor be engaged by the defendant and the plaintiff to cost what the defendant had spent in putting up those buildings for the plaintiff to settle the defendant or in the shops build on it.”
The quarrel there is that the aspect requiring a quantity surveyor to cost the building so that the Cross Respondent can be settled by the Cross Appellant or for the Cross Appellant to pay before taking over the buildings.
It is settled beyond citing of authorities that a Court is bound by the claim filed by the Claimant, see UNIJOS V IKEGWUOHA (2013) LPELR-20233(SC) which held thusly:
”It is the law that for a party to be awarded any relief by a Court of law, that party must not only plead with particularity but also prove by credible and convincing evidence that he is indeed entitled to the relief he seeks. There is a plethora of case law on this very important subject matter. In PETER ADEBAYO ODOFIN & ANOR v. CHIEF AGU & ANOR (1992) 3 NWLR (PART 229) 350 this Court stated categorically that Courts ought not to play
7
the role of Father Christmas which can go round granting to parties reliefs which they have not asked for. Let me state without any fear of contradiction that the “free giving” Father Christmas no longer exists if he ever existed as parents pay indirectly for the “gifts” which their children appear to get freely. See also CHIEF N. T. OKOKO v. MARK DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR (PART 1000) 401; AYANBOYE v. BALOGUN (1990) 5 NWLR (PART 151) 392 at 413; IGE v. OLUNLOYO (1984) ALL NLR 150; ATSER v. GACHI (1997) 6 NWLR (PART 570) 609 at 630; LADOKE v. OLOBAYO (1992) 8 NWLR (PART 261) 605 at 619 – 630; AWOSILE v. SOTUNBO (1992) 5 NWLR (PART 243) 514. The list of authorities on this subject matter is in exhaustive and are all to the effect that a Court of law has no jurisdiction to grant to a party that which he has not asked for. It is an old legal principle and is quite sacrosanct. A claim that is vague and lacks certainty is no claim at all.” Per ALAGOA, J.S.C
As stated in the quotation above, the Court below lacked the jurisdiction to go outside the claim before it to make an award. Jurisdiction is fundamental and a Court must possess it before it can take a step in
8
the matter, see EAGLE SUPER PACK (NIG) LTD V ACB PLC (2006) LPELR-980(SC) wherein the apex Court said:
“It is elementary law that a Court is bound by the relief or reliefs sought. The generosity or charity of a Court of law is confined strictly to the relief or reliefs sought to the extent that a Court of law cannot give to a party what he did not claim. That is completely outside our procedural law. The rational behind this is that a party who comes to Court knows where the shoe pinches him and therefore knows the limits of what he wants. The Court, as an unbiased umpire, so to say, cannot claim to know the relief or reliefs better than the party and give him over and above what he has claimed. While a Court has jurisdiction to award less than what a party claims, it has no jurisdiction to award more than what he claims.” Per TOBI ,J.S.C.
Without beating around the bush, the trial Judge erred by granting what was not claimed and both parties in this appeal are ad idem on this point. It also settled that any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction must be set aside. I hereby set aside the part of the judgment where the trial Judge held thus:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
9
“The defendant is a peaceful person who needed an assistance from the Honourable Court and the Honourable Court now ordered that an independent surveyor be engaged by the defendant and the plaintiff to cost what the defendant had spent in putting up those buildings for the plaintiff to settle the defendant or in the alternative for the building to pay the defendant before taking over the land and the shops build on it.”
The Court is not a Father Christmas if any such person existed, parents have to always pay before the children can see the Father Christmas, so it is a make belief which the children do not know. The Court cannot give what was not sought for in the statement of claim. The claim at pages 4 of the record does not include the portion set aside and even the counterclaim (at page 80 of the record) did not include such a relief or anything near it. A Court can award less than what a party claims but cannot award in excess of what a party seek as reliefs before the Court. It is the law that once a declaration is made in favour of a party and an injunction also granted, the Court has no business going into other issues in respect of the same land claimed.
10
The Cross Appellant in seeking to set aside the un-solicited order relied on the principle of “quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit” which simply means whatever is affixed to the soil becomes in contemplation of law part of it, as held in NEPA V. AMUSA & ANOR (1976) LPELR-1956 (SC) as follows:
“With respect, we think that the maxim quid quid plantator solo solo cedit is still good law. It is a general rule of great antiquity and it means that whatever is affixed to the soil becomes, in contemplation of law, a part of it, and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself. Thus, if a man builds on his own land with the materials of another, the owner of the soil becomes in law, the owner also of the building. Similarly, if trees were planted or seeds sown in the land of another, the owner of the soil became the owner also of the trees, plants or the seeds as soon as they had taken root (see Broom’s Legal Maxims 9th Edition, pp. 264-265). Of course, this general rule of law is subject to any contract entered into by the parties and also to the doctrine and rules of equity. Apart from these
11
exceptions which are not relevant to the case in hand, we are not aware of any general rule of law, and the learned trial judge did not refer to any, which says that the reverse, except as defined in specified statutes, is possible and that a building could therefore, for all purposes, include land on which it is built.”
Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS ,J.S.C ( P. 16, paras. B-G )
By virtue of operation of law therefore, everything on the land in dispute, having been found to belong to the Cross-Appellant becomes automatically belonging and vested in the Cross-Appellant under the land law maxim of “quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit”. The principle was reiterated in the Supreme Court case of ORIANWO V OKENE (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 786) 193 and DANTSOHO V MOHAMMED (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 490 where the apex Court held as follows:
“As regards the cross appeal, I think the learned trial judge introduced some confusion into the case by his order that the defendant remove his building within three months. The plaintiff claimed an injunction. Having found, and quite rightly in my view, that the title to the land is in the plaintiff and that the defendant is a
12
trespasser, he should have granted an injunction to protect plaintiff’s title. Defendant did not claim a relief that he be given time to remove his building, the learned trial judge should not have made that order. Title to the land being in the plaintiff everything that accedes to the land belongs to the plaintiff on the principle of quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit.”
See also REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MASTER’S VESSEL MINISTRIES (NIG) INCORPORATED V EMENIKE & CO (2017) LPELR-42836.
Can the order qualify as a consequential order? The Supreme Court in the case of AWONIYI & ORS V REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AMORC (NIG) (2000) LPELR-655(SC) answered the question as follows:
“The purpose of a consequential order is to give effect to the decision or judgment of the Court but not by granting an entirely new, unclaimed and/or incongruous relief which was not contested by the parties at the trial and neither did it fall in alignment with the original reliefs claimed in the suit nor was it in the contemplation of the parties that such relief would be the subject matter of a formal executory judgment or order against either side to
13
the dispute. A consequential order may also not be properly made to give to a party, an entitlement to a relief he has not established in his favour. See; Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd. and Ors. (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.167) 270 at 288; Obayagbona v. Obazee 1972) 5 S.C. 247; Liman v. Alhaji Mohammed (1999) 9 NMLR (Pt. 617) 116.” Per IGUH, J.S.C.
A Court is not allowed to give what a party has not established in the name of consequential order.
In consequence of above, I resolve the sole issue in favour of the Cross Appellant. The cross appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed.
I make no order as to cost.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree.
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. I also agree that the cross-appeal succeeds and I abide by the consequential orders.
14
Appearances:
NUREIMI JIMOH with him, J. A. SULAYMAN and G. GBOLAFEDE For Appellant(s)
M. ATTAH with him, P. A. ONUH and O.B.O OKIEMUTE For Respondent(s)
