ALHAJI ABDULA-RAUF TIJJANI & ORS v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR
(2014)LCN/7237(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 28th day of May, 2014
CA/L/381/2012
JUSTICES
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. ALHAJI ABDULA-RAUF TIJJANI
2. TUNDOKUN INVEST CO. LTD
3. TUNDOKUN NIG. ENT. LTD Appellant(s)
AND
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED
AND
MR. ADE ADENIJI
(PERSON SOUGHT TO BE COMMITTED TO PRISON/RESPONDENT) Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A PARTY SHOULD ENGAGE A LEGAL PRACTITIONER WHERE HE IS NOT LEARNED IN COMPLEX AND TECHNICAL LAW
I will advise the 1st Appellant that since he is not learned in law which is very complex and technical, he cannot be a match to a trained legal practitioner like the learned respondent’s counsel. He does not understand the rules of procedure and how best to present his case in a court of law. The best thing for him to do is to engage a legal practitioner and give him the needed room to conduct his case professionally. If he fails to do so, the case may be doomed. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is one among the several appeals filed by the 1st Appellant from Suit No.ID/241/2007. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants are customers of the 1st Respondent and had obtained credit facilities from it but the relationship has turned sour. After the Appellants applied for further facilities which was refused by the Respondent, by an internal memorandum of the 1st Respondent dated 28th November, 2002, a query was issued to a certain Mrs. M. Adisa to explain why disciplinary action would not be taken against her for recommending that fresh application of the 1st Appellant as the prime mover of the 2nd appellant for credit facility be granted, when the said 1st Appellant had under a different name: Abdul Rauf Ademola Adedokun, applied for loan under the name of the 3rd Appellant which loan was not repaid and was written off. Upon becoming aware of this internal memorandum, the Appellants sued the 1st Respondent for libel claiming N700,000,000.00 as damages for the defamation. Parties, in accordance with the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 applicable at the time frontloaded their documents.
Trial has commenced in this matter when on 13th day of October, 2011 the 1st Appellant who is not a legal practitioner but is conducting this matter personally brought an application praying the trial court, among other reliefs, for:
“1. AN ORDER of this Hon. Court to strike out the defense process in its entirety for exhibiting illegality that goes to the root of obstructing, perverting and delay the fair trail (sic) of the Claimants’ case and not a Defence to the claimants’ claim.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court for the trial of this case on the claimants’ pleading and evidence alone.”
The application was supported by an affidavit of 12 paragraphs sworn to by Chief M. O. Falaiye, personal assistant to the 1st Appellant herein. The Respondent on being served with the application filed a Counter-Affidavit accompanied with a Written Address in opposition to the reliefs sought.
The 1st Appellant responded to this by filing a Reply on points of Law of 10 pages. Thereafter, he filed another application which is the subject matter of the present appeal. In the application dated 11th November, 2011, he prayed the trial Court for:
“AN ORDER of this Hon. Court committing Chief Ade-Adeniji the leading defence counsel to prison for contempt facie curiae”
In paragraph 3 of the Affidavit filed in support of the present application, it was deposed as follows at page 363 of the record of appeal:
“3 ii That the claimants filed motion on Notice dated 13th October, 2011 praying the court to strike out the defence process on points of law that do not require calling before the court could determine the issue of
law involved.
iii That the person sought to be committed to prison, glossed over the issues of law raised by the claimants in their written address in support of granting the said application and opted for character assassination of the claimants and harassment of court through the bench vide statement made at paragraph 4.6 of defence written address attached with its counter affidavit in opposition to the said claimants application. The CTC of the said defence written address produced has been shown to me by the 1st Claimant and Marked Exhibit A.”
The said paragraph 4.6 of the Respondent’s written address being complained of states:
“Finally my Lady, we submit with respect that there have been no appeals against the decisions referred to by the claimants in paragraphs 9 and 10 of their affidavit in support for which they now expect your Lordship to act as an appellate court over the decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. We submit, this is further proof of the vexatious nature of these claimants. We submit further that such an order by your Lady would only amount to chaos, and bring the judiciary and institution of justice into disrepute – which is exactly what these litigants want. We submit that this Honourable Court would do well not to fall into this clever trap set by the Claimants.”
After considering the submissions of parties, the trial court ruled on 2nd February, 2012 dismissing the application. The most material part of the three page ruling of the court states:
“The question is – what order of this court has the Defendant breached? There is nothing before me to show what order of court has been breached or how Defence counsel has interfered with the administration of justice. All he is doing is defending his client the best way he knows how! I cannot at all find that there is any contempt here. I would strongly call upon the 1st claimant once again to get legal representation and allow his case to proceed to trial so that the case can be disposed of one way or another as soon as possible.” (Emphasis is mine)
I must observe that the main problem revealed from my reading of the voluminous record of appeal in this case is that the 1st Appellant who is not a legal practitioner has decided to conduct this case by himself. The consequence is that it has been very difficult to follow the trend of arguments of the Appellant in this case and make anything out of it.
From the inception of this case, the Appellants have at various times engaged the law firms of about three different Senior Advocates of Nigeria to handle this matter but subsequently withdrew the instructions given to them. Eventually, the 1st Appellant who is not a legal practitioner decided to handle the case by himself. Owing to his limitations in this regard and the various errors made by him at trial, the learned trial Judge has appealed to the 1st Appellant to get legal representation but he has been turning down the advice on every occasion.
The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing about five grounds of appeal against the decision of the trial court. I said “about five grounds of appeal” because it is not very clear how many grounds of appeal are contained in the Notice of Appeal owing to the way the Appellants have muddled up matters. Notwithstanding the fact that the 1st Appellant does not possess the necessary skill required for him to be able to conduct this matter, he has insisted on prosecuting the matter by himself and this has given rise to many problems including filing of the application leading to this appeal and this appeal all of which I consider unnecessary.
I need also to observe that upon scrutiny of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal, none of the complaints in the grounds of appeal arose from the ruling of the trial court being appealed against, Notwithstanding that this is a very serious defect which renders the entire appeal incompetent; I will still proceed to see how I can address the merits of the issue that arose from the ruling being complained of simply because the 1st Appellant who is conducting this case for the Appellants is not a legal practitioner.
Parties have filed the briefs of arguments which I have considered including the Reply filed by the Appellants. Out of the grounds of appeal filed, the 1st Appellant has formulated six issues which I hereby set out below:
“1. Whether the trial Judge has jurisdiction and competent to adjudicating on the procedure and proceeding where the jurisdiction of court has been challenged without resolved the issue of jurisdiction first?
2. Whether the trial Judge has jurisdictional power to manufacturing evidence defer from the mode prescribed by law for doing thing in procedure and proceeding?
3. Whether the trial Judge has constitutional panacea to discriminating against the 1st Appellant in conducting the trial proceeding from the Bar at the request of the Respondent counsel and thereby constituted her self as a third party by ruling against the Appellants without any authority of law?
4. Whether it is right and proper for a trial Judge to denied the Appellants the opportunity to place before the court all documentary evidence that would assist them in prove their case that could only be resolved by documents and law?
5. Whether the Appellants can be said to have acted in bad faith or with malice in bringing their objection on time to save all involve in the case from proceeding with what they know would ultimately amount to a nullity?
6. Whether the Appellate court has jurisdiction over the whole proceedings both in the civil and criminal case involved in the instant appeal as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as court of first instance and to rehear the case in whole or in party? And whether the Respondent has joined issue in any form known to law with the Appellants in the records of the instant appeal?
The Respondent formulated a single issue for determination which is:
“Whether a decision, dismissing an application to commit the Defendant’s lead Counsel to prison for contempt facie curie is speculative and amounts to an issue of jurisdiction?”
Having regards to the issue of contempt raised in the application filed by the Appellants which gave rise to the decision of the trial court and this appeal, the sole issue that has arisen is: Whether the Appellants have made out a good case for committal of the leading defence counsel to prison for contempt?
The Appellants have complained that the Respondent’s counsel not only embarked in character assassination of the claimants in his written address filed in opposition to their Motion, but also engaged in harassment of court through the statement made at paragraph 4.6 of defence written address. The trial court in its ruling found that there was no contempt committed by the learned counsel for the Respondent and that the evidence put before the court by the Appellants did not establish anything that amounts to contempt of court. The court further observed that no order of the trial court has been breached to give rise to the Appellants’ application in this case. The Appellants’ appeal did not challenge these crucial findings of the trial court in their appeal. It therefore means that these finding are still subsisting and binding on the Appellants. In the light of that, there is no way this Honourable Court can set aside that decision as same is founded on solid grounds. The trial Judge is on firm ground when it decided that the application filed by the Appellants for committal of the learned Respondent’s counsel did not disclose that he committed anything that amounts to contempt of court, therefore the decision must stand.
The appellants have also attacked the decision of the trial court on grounds that were not canvassed at the trial in respect of this application. That amounts to raising fresh issues on appeal without leave of court which cannot be permitted in this case. They even alleged that the trial court denied them a hearing with respect to the application dated 13th October, 2011. There is nothing on the records to show that the Appellants have moved that application and in the absence of that I am not willing to say anything about that application which was still pending before the trial court at the time this appeal was brought. It seems to me that the 1st Appellant is in love with the word jurisdiction’ and brings it into his argument at every occasion not minding whether in fact issue of jurisdiction is actually involved.
Based on the foregoing, I find no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. I will advise the 1st Appellant that since he is not learned in law which is very complex and technical, he cannot be a match to a trained legal practitioner like the learned respondent’s counsel. He does not understand the rules of procedure and how best to present his case in a court of law. The best thing for him to do is to engage a legal practitioner and give him the needed room to conduct his case professionally. If he fails to do so, the case may be doomed.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba, J.C.A., availed me the opportunity of reading before now the judgment prepared by His Lordship in which I concur.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: My learned brother C. E. Iyizobo, JCA has afforded me the benefit of a prior perusal of the lead judgment just delivered.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. According, I too hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. I adopt the order as to costs as contained in the aforementioned lead judgment.
Appearances
Alhaji A. R. Tijiani in personFor Appellant
AND
Ikechukwu Egwu Esq.For Respondent
