AHMED v. CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT IBRAHIM TAIWO ROAD, KADUNA & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16115(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, April 08, 2022
CA/K/123/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Mojeed Adekunle Owoade Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ABDULLAHI AHMED APPELANT(S)
And
1. CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT IBRAHIM TAIWO ROAD, KADUNA 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KADUNA STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST ARISE FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Issues for determination formulated in a brief must be based on the grounds of appeal filed by the parties. If the issues are not related to any ground of appeal, then they become irrelevant and go to no issue. Consequently, any argument in the brief in support of such issues will be discountenanced by the Court.
See Ibator v. Barakuro (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 475 SC; Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 66 at 72; Dalori v. Sadikwu (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392 SC; J.C. Ltd v. Ezenwa(1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) 391 at 399 SC; Momodu v. Momoh, 9 (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 608 SC; Adelaja v. Fanoiki (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137 SC; UTB (Nig) LTD v. Ajagbule (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 447; Admin Gen, Delta State V. Ogogo(2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 366; Nigeria Customs Service v. Bazuaye (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 303 and U.P.S Ltd v. UFOT (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 963)1.
Also, it is trite law that issues for determination on appeal must be based on the decision of the Court against which the appeal is made. See Ifabiyi v. Adeniyi (2000) 5 SC 31 at 42, Durowode v. The State (2000) 7 WRN 50 SC. PER OWOADE, J.C.A.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on the 20th day of December, 2019, by Honourable Justice Hannatu Balogun.
The 1st Respondent as Applicant approached the Court below by way of Judicial Review under Order 37 Rule 6 of the High Court of Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007, by a motion praying the Court for the following orders:
“1. AN ORDER of this honourable Court removing into this Court for the purpose of being quashed the whole proceedings of CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT, IBRAHIM TAIWO ROAD, KADUNA in suit No. KMD/36x/2018 between C.O.P VS. ABDULLAHI AHMED for lack of jurisdiction and miscarriage of justice.
2. AN ORDER of this honourable Court quashing the whole proceedings and Order of the CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT, IBRAHIM TAIWO ROAD, KADUNA in suit No. KMD/36x/2018 between C.O.P vs. ABDULLAHI AHMED for lack of jurisdiction and miscarriage of justice.
3. AND such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”
The grounds on which the application was brought are:
“1. That the 1st Respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that it is an abuse of Court process.
2. That the subject matter of this suit borders on declaration of title to land which is pending before High Court of Kaduna State in suit No. KDH/KAD/98/2017 DANYARO NIG LTD VS. GOVERNOR OF KADUNA STATE & 2 ORS.
3. That a competent Court of law namely; High Court No. 14 of Kaduna State, has restrained the Respondent from arresting the defendant pending the determination of Suit No. KDH/KAD/33/2018.”
Processes including annexures and written addresses were filed and exchanged.
In a considered judgment delivered on 20/12/2019, the learned trial Judge granted the reliefs of the 1st Respondent/Applicant and quashed the proceeding in case No. KMD/36x/2018 between C.O.P v. Abdullahi Ahmed pending before the Chief Magistrate Court. The reasoning of the learned trial Judge would be found on pages 122 – 123 of the Record of Appeal. First at pages 122 – 123 of the records that:
“Having looked at all the various Court processes related to this matter, it is true that there have been unnecessary and multiple litigations in this case.
The reason is that parties have not been patient to await the finding of the High Court on the issue of title. Once that issue is decided, all other issues can easily be decided.
Now, on the case at the lower Court, there is no doubt that the Magistrate Court has no jurisdiction to decide on title to land. Thus, where title is in issue, the lower Court has two options to either stay proceedings pending the outcome of the High Court matter which will determine title or strike out the complaint to enable the state file the charge before the High Court. In the present case, since another High Court is already trying the issue of title, it will be prejudicial for the trespass case to run concurrently, even in the High Court to avoid conflict in decisions on title which always have to do with the evidence presented to the Court.
In the present case, there is also a valid and subsisting order of Court in KDH/KAD/33/2018 to stop prosecution until the matter is decided. Even if the 2nd Respondent felt there is duplicity, his duty is to let the Court know and not to proceed. I however appreciate the fact that the proceedings only continued when the matter was initially struck out. The 1st Respondent should have stopped when the case was relisted.”
Second, and in conclusion, that:
“In any event, as held earlier, the 1st Respondent has no jurisdiction to determine title to land and the case at the High Court is pending. The Respondent’s counsel submitted that the applicant is not a party to the case. From the documents filed, the case is over the same land and the applicant’s landlord is a party to the case so that submission is misconceived.
For all the above reasons, I hold that the 1st Respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter when the issue of title is still pending and he cannot determine title.
This case has merit and I grant the reliefs sought. The case No. KMD/36x/2018 between C.O.P V. ABDULLAHI AHMED pending before the 1st Respondent is accordingly removed to this Court and quashed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant at first, filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court on 3/2/2020 but later filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing two(2) grounds of appeal on 27/11/2020.
The relevant briefs of Argument for the appeal are:
“1. Appellant’s brief of Argument which was filed on 6/7/2020 but deemed filed on 22//9/2021. It is settled by Martin Danjuma Esq.
2. 1st Respondent’s brief of Argument which was filed on 29/7/2020 but deemed filed on 22/9/2021. It is settled by M.K. Mustapha Esq.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant nominated two (2) issues for determination. They are:
“i. Whether the lower Court erred when it held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter of criminal trespass? As distilled from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal.
ii. Whether the lower Court was in error to hold that a civil suit before a High Court can act as a bar to a criminal trial before a Magistrate Court and thereby removing and quashing the proceedings of the lower Court?”
Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent also formulated two (2) issues for determination of the appeal thus:
“1. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant was wrong to prosecute the 1st Respondent (Abdullahi Ahmed) before the 2nd Respondent (Chief Magistrate Court Ibrahim Taiwo Rd, Kaduna) when there is a valid and subsisting order of Court in Suit No. KDH/KAD/33/2018 restraining the Appellant from arresting, detaining, harassing, threatening and or intimidating the 1st Respondent pending the determination of the substantive matter.
2. Whether the trial Court was right when it removed and quashed the proceedings of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent lacked jurisdiction to entertain a criminal trespass against the 1st respondent Abdullahi Ahmad (who is a tenant to a landlord) when title to the land is in issue between the landlord and the nominal complainant and same is pending before High Court of justice of Kaduna State.”
In the instant case, my observation from the records is that none of the issues formulated for determination by the learned counsel for the Appellant arose or derived from the grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal of 27/11/2020. Also none of the issues formulated by the Appellant for determination of the appeal arose from the judgment of the Court below.
For ease of reference, the Appellant’s grounds of appeal as contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal of 27/11/2020 devoid of their particulars are as follows:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred when he held as follows:
“For all the above reasons, I hold that the 1st Respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter when the issue of title is still pending and he cannot determine title.”
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge erred when held as follows:
“This case has merit and I grant the reliefs sought. The case No. KMD/36x/2018 between COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VS. ABDULLAHI AHMED pending before the 1st Respondent is accordingly removed to this Court and quashed for lack of jurisdiction.”
There is nothing in the Appellant’s grounds of appeal or in the judgment of the Court below which decides any of the issues suggested for determination by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
Issues for determination formulated in a brief must be based on the grounds of appeal filed by the parties. If the issues are not related to any ground of appeal, then they become irrelevant and go to no issue. Consequently, any argument in the brief in support of such issues will be discountenanced by the Court.
See Ibator v. Barakuro (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 475 SC; Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 66 at 72; Dalori v. Sadikwu (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392 SC; J.C. Ltd v. Ezenwa(1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) 391 at 399 SC; Momodu v. Momoh, 9 (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 608 SC; Adelaja v. Fanoiki (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137 SC; UTB (Nig) LTD v. Ajagbule (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 447; Admin Gen, Delta State V. Ogogo(2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 366; Nigeria Customs Service v. Bazuaye (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 303 and U.P.S Ltd v. UFOT (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 963)1.
Also, it is trite law that issues for determination on appeal must be based on the decision of the Court against which the appeal is made. See Ifabiyi v. Adeniyi (2000) 5 SC 31 at 42, Durowode v. The State (2000) 7 WRN 50 SC.
For these reasons, the Appellant’s issues for determination which have no bearing with the grounds of appeal and the ratio decidendi in the judgment of the Court below are liable to be struck out.
Appellant’s issues for determination of the appeal as well as the appeal itself are hereby struck out.
There shall be no order as to costs.
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother MOJEED A. OWOADE, JCA, I entirely agree with his reasoning and conclusions that the Appellant’s issues for determination which have no bearing with the grounds of appeal and the ratio decidendi in the judgment of the Court are liable to be struck out.
The appeal is lacking in merit and same is struck out. No order as to cost.
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Mojeed A. Owoade, JCA, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached. I do not have anything useful to add. I abide by all the orders made therein.
Appearances:
MARTINS DANJUMA, (SP) For Appellant(s)
M.I. ASHIRI FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT. For Respondent(s)
