ALH.MUSA H. GUBLA v. SAMUEL ALAGBE LAWUYI & ORS
(2019)LCN/13754(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 15th day of August, 2019
CA/J/309/2018(CONSOLIDATED)
RATIO
JUDGMENT: PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DELIVERED UNDER SECTION 294 OF THE 1999 CONSITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
Section 294 (1)
“Every Court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of delivery thereof.” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
JUDGMENT: WHEN A JUDGMENT IS NOT GIVEN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD
Section 294 (5)
“The decision of a Court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Subsection (1) of this section unless the Court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of the decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.”
The general interpretation given to the combined reading of Section 294 (1) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is that, a Court?s decision cannot simply be nullified for the fact that the decision was delivered outside the ninety day period allowed by the Constitution.PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
CONSOLIDATION OF SUITS: LEGAL CONSEQUENCE
It is settled law that the legal consequences of the consolidation of two or more suits is that it only unifies their trial in the sense that the same body of evidence is used to determine the same issues, but, it does not destroy the separate existence of the suits and each must therefore be determined and pronounced upon separately.? Per Agim, JCA in NGADIUKWU V MOGHALU & ORS (2014) LPELR 24366 (CA) AT 9 12 (D D). See also: CHIDOLUE V. OGBUNEBE & ANOR (2018) LPELR 44885 (CA). PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
JUDGMENT: NATURE OF JUDGMENT TO BE GIVEN IN A CONSOLIDATED SUIT
On the nature of judgment to be delivered when there is consolidation of suits, the Apex Court in NKUMA V. ODILI (2006) LPELR 2047 (SC) AT 13; Per G. S. Oguntade, JSC held:
Whilst it is correct that in a consolidated matter, a Court must come to a separate decision on the issue agitated in each of the cases, it must be borne in mind that what is required is that the judgment of the Court must show that the trial Judge adverted his mind to all the issues arising from the consolidated suit. The manner in which a Judge does this very often depends on the nature of the consolidated cases.? Consequently, it is lucent from all the authorities I have referred to above on how the Court should render its decision or judgment in consolidated suits. Following the principles laid down in decided authorities so far referred to: it is my view that in consolidated suits; (1) Separate decisions or pronouncements must be made in respect of each of the consolidated suits. (2) The decision in respect of each consolidated suit can be given in one composite judgment or two separate judgments depending on the facts and issues in each of the consolidated suits. (3) The fact that one single judgment is delivered in consolidated suits will not automatically render the judgment invalid, the party complaining must show that failure to render two separate judgments or decisions has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See:NKUMA V. ODILI (2006) LPELR 2047 (SC) AT 13; U.B.A V. ETIABA & ORS (2008) LPELR 5039 (CA). PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE:WITNESS: WHO IS A VITAL WITNESS
The submission of Mr. Sangei learned counsel for the Appellant is correct that in any legal contest, failure to call a vital witness is detrimental to the party that so failed. The Apex Court in EMMANUEL OCHIBA V. THE STATE (2011) 17 NWLR (PT. 1277) 663 AT 696 PARAS. A-B held that:
A vital witness is a witness whose evidence may determine a case one way or the other. In other words, a witness who knows something significant about a matter is a vital witness; and the failure to call a vital witness is fatal to the prosecution?s case.?
See also: A. G. KWARA STATE &ORS V. OLAWALE (1993) 1 SCNJ 208 AT 223-224; (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 272) 645;AWURE V. ILEDU (2008) 12 NWLR (PT. 1098) 249. PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
WITNESS: WHETHER A PLAINTIFF MUST BE PRESENT IN COURT AND MUST TESTIFY IN HIS CASE
Furthermore, there is no rule of law that makes it mandatory for a plaintiff to be present in Court let alone to testify in his case if he could prove his case by any other means without giving evidence. See: WESTERN PUBLISHING CO. LTD. V. FAYEMI (2015) LPELR ? 24735(CA). I do not therefore agree with the Appellant that failure of the Respondents to call the 1st Respondent to testify did in any way negatively affect their case. PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: SPECIAL DAMAGES: HOW TO PLEAD SPECIAL DAMAGES AND THE RIGHT ATTITUDE OF TRIAL COURTS
Special damages must be pleaded with distinct particularity and strictly proved and as such a Court is not entitled to make an award of special damages based on conjecture or on some speculative estimate of alleged loss sustained by a Plaintiff. See: DUMEZ (NIGERIA) LIMITED V. OGBOLI (1972) 1 ALL N.L.R, 241; OSUJI V. ISIOCHA (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 111) 623; JABER V. BASMA (1952) 12 WACA 140. Therefore, as far as the requirements of the law are concerned on the award of special damages, a trial Court cannot make its own individual or arbitrary assessment of what it conceives the Plaintiff may be entitled to, what the law requires in such a case is for the Court to act on the hard facts presented before the Court and accepted by it in establishing the amount claimed justifying the award. See: UBN PLC V. AJABULE & ANOR (2011) LPELR ? 8239 (SC); IGHEDO & ANOR V. PHCN (2018) LPELR ? 43863 (SC); AJIGBOTOSHO V. RCC 9 (2018) LPELR ? 44774 (SC); ENEH V. OZOR (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1538) 219. In the instant case, the Appellant in his pleadings at the trial Court made a blanket claim of special damages in the sum of N1,250,000.00 being cost of rehabilitation/renovation of the property in dispute without pleading the particulars of how he arrived at the sum claimed, nor documents to show he suffered any special damage. It is settled that a claim for special damages succeeds only on the strict proof of the specifically pleaded facts in relation to the sum claimed. Where items of special damages are not specified and strictly proved as in the instant case, recovery of same will not be granted. See: ANYANWU & ORS V. UZOWUAKA & ORS (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1159) 445, NWANJI V. COASTAL SERVICES (NIG) LTD (2004) LPELR-2106 (SC); AJIGBOTOSHO V. RCC 9 (2018) LPELR ? 44774(SC); ENEH V. OZOR (2016) 16 NWLR (PT 1538) 219. PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALH. MUSA H. GUBLA Appellant(s)
AND
1. SAMUEL ALAGBE LAWUYI
2. NATHANIEL ALAGBE LAWUYI
CA/J/309/2018
1. SAMUEL ALAGBE LAWUYI
2. TUNDE ALAGBE LAWUYI
3. NATHANIEL ALAGBE LAWUYI
CA/J/310/2018 Respondent(s)
