ALHAJI GARBA UMAR v. THE SPEAKER, TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS
(2019)LCN/13067(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019
CA/YL/180/2017
RATIO
APPEAL: WHEN A GROUND OF APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE OR THE PARTICULARS OF APPEAL DO NOT FLOW FROM THE GROUNDS
In ABE V. UNILORIN (Supra) at Page 205 Paragraphs F-H the Apex Court held that:-
Where a ground of Appeal is defective or the particulars do not flow there from or related thereto, such a ground or particular or particulars are liable to striking out. Once the ground or one or more of its particulars are liable to striking out the remaining particular or particulars as well as the ground itself are rendered otiose, because it is not the duty of the Court to extend hands of fellowship to one of the parties by assisting him to carry out a surgical operation of that party?s ground of Appeal by excising the defective part from it.PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
SECTION 124(5): WHO CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS PROVISION
The answer in my humble a capital NO! If the Plaintiff has never legally occupied the office of the Deputy Governor of Taraba State as I have just found he cannot in the same vein be a beneficiary of Section 124 (5) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 3 (1) of the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governors Pensions Law No. 3 of 2015.PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
WHEN AN ACT IS DECLARED NULL AND VOID EVERY RIGHT TIED TO IT IS EXTINGUISHED
This is so because once an act is declared null and void and of no legal consequence, every right tied to it is extinguished as one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it will collapse.
No legal right can therefore be hoisted on any claim arising from a null and void act like the purported appointment of the Plaintiff as Deputy Governor of Taraba State. See BILLY IKPONGETTE V. C.O.P. AKWA IBOM STATE (2009) AFWLR (Part 471) 996 . I agree with the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the Plaintiff was a mere usurper of the office of the Deputy Governor of Taraba Statethe Plaintiff still has no cause of action against the Defendants and consequently lacks the locus standi to institute this action.”PER ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.
APPEAL: THE EFFECT OF A DECISION OR FINDING OF A COURT NOT BEING APPEALED AGAINST
The law is well settled that a decision or finding of Court on any point of law or fact which is not appealed against is valid, subsisting and binding on the parties.
In APGA V. ANYANWU & ORS (2014) VOL 231 LRCN 1 @ 33 Paragraphs A ? F the Apex Court held that:-
It is settled principle of law that a decision on any point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed to have been conceded by the party against whom it was decided and it remains valid and binding on all parties.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 GARBA UMAR – Appellant(s)
AND
1. THE SPEAKER, TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
2. THE TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
3. GOVERNOR, TARABA STATE – Respondent(s)
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Taraba State sitting in Jalingo delivered by J. C. Agya J on the 24th July, 2017 in Suit No. TRSJ/89/2016. The Appellant as Plaintiff before the lower Court instituted the suit by way of originating summons seeking for the following: –
1) Whether the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 (1) of the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor?s Pension Law No. 3 of 2015 are not in conflict with the Provisions of Sections 318 and 124 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
2) Whether the said Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor?s Pension Law are not null and void on account of the said conflict with Sections 318 and 124 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Defendants at the lower Court filed a joint counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summons as well as a notice of preliminary of objection challenging the suit. The 3rd Respondent also filed a counter
1
affidavit and motion on notice on 16th November, 2016 in opposition to the originating summons urging the Court to dismiss the Appellant?s claim. The lower Court dismissed the Appellant?s suit on the grounds that the suit is an abuse of Court process. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 11th September, 2017. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted out of time by an order of Court granted on 8th March, 2018; it was deemed compiled and transmitted on the same date. The Appellant?s Brief of Argument was filed on 23rd April, 2018 but was deemed filed and served on 19th February, 2019. The 1st and 2nd Respondent?s Brief of Argument was filed on 24th May, 2018. The 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument was filed on 27th August, 2018.
When the Appeal came up for hearing, learned Appellant?s Counsel adopted the Appellant?s Brief of argument in which four issues were formulated for determination distilled from the four grounds of Appeal. Counsel adopted the Brief and urged the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on 24th July, 2017. Counsel to the 1st
2
and 2nd Respondents also adopted the Brief of argument of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court. According to counsel, they filed a Notice of preliminary objection on 24th May, 2018 challenging the competence of this Appeal which he adopted and urged the Court to uphold it. That the arguments in respect of the P/objection are contained on Pages 6-25 of their Brief of Argument.
Learned counsel to the 3rd Respondent also adopted the Brief of argument of the 3rd Respondent and urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on 24th July, 2017. That they also filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on 27th August, 2018 which he adopted and urged the Court to uphold it. That the arguments in respect of the Preliminary objection are contained on Pages 6-15 of the Brief.
The Court will now proceed to determine the Preliminary objection first; if it is sustained, the Appeal ends there. On the other hand, if it is overruled the Court will proceed to determine the main Appeal. The notice of preliminary objection is on the competence of this Appeal on the
3
following grounds:-
GROUND ONE
The entire Appeal is a mere academic exercise and an abuse of the process of this noble Court in the daunting face of the unappealed findings/decisions arising from the decision appealed against to the effect that the Appellant lack the locus standi to initiate the suit and that there was no reasonable cause of action disclosed in this case.
PARTICULARS
1) That the suit is in gross violation of Order 1 Rule 6 of the Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2011.
2) No reasonable cause of action is disclosed against the Defendants especially the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this matter thus disabling the jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
3) The Plaintiff lacks the requisite locus standi to commence and maintain this suit.
4) The suit was initiated in gross violation of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law of Taraba State, 1993, Cap. 155 and therefore statute barred.
GROUND TWO
Grounds two and four of the Notice of Appeal do not relate to the decision of 24/07/17 appealed against as could be gleaned from the Notice of Appeal dated 24/07/17 and filed on 11/09/17.
4
In arguing the Preliminary objection, two issues were formulated from the grounds of the Preliminary objection: –
1) Whether in the daunting face of the damaging findings/decisions of the Court below under grounds one and two of the Preliminary objection of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to which this Appeal is unrelated, this Appeal is not academic, hypothetical, frolicsome and an abuse of Court process (Distilled from ground one of the Preliminary objection).
2) Whether grounds two and four of the Notice of Appeal relate to the decision of 24/07/2017 appealed against as could be gleaned from the Notice of Appeal dated 24/07/2017 and filed on 11/09/2017 to enclothe or garb them with the requisite validity and competence. (Distilled from ground two of the Preliminary objection).
On issue one, it was argued that the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed an application dated 1/10/16 seeking for the termination of the suit in limine before the lower Court on four grounds as is reflected on Pages 201 ? 254 of the Record of Appeal. That under grounds 2 and 3, the 1st and 2nd Respondents raised and argued preliminary issues regarding paragraphs 9, 10 (b),
5
(c) and 11 of the supporting affidavit of the Appellant for offending Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. That another preliminary issue raised was on the non-certification of all the exhibits attached to the affidavit of the Appellant and Exhibits MM1, MM2, and MM3 for being unsigned and thus lacking in value as shown at Pages 218 ? 228 of the printed record.
According to Counsel, the lower Court sustained the first ground of the Preliminary objection and Paragraphs 9, 10(b) and (c) and 11 of the affidavit were struck out and he refers to Page 761 of the printed record. That the lower Court held that the matter was incompetent and struck out on the grounds that the suit failed to disclose cause of action and that the Appellant lack the locus standi to sustain the action.
Learned counsel submitted further that none of the grounds of Appeal is related to the findings/decisions and the order of the lower Court striking out the suit on the ground of lack of locus standi and none disclosure of cause of action as deciphered from Pages 681 ? 685 of the printed record. That when findings of a Court are not specifically challenged
6
as in this case, the party against whom it is made is deemed to have admitted/conceded to same. He referred toN.B.C.I. V. INTEGRATED GAS (2005) 2 SCM 67. Counsel referred to REV. MIJINYAWA OF HEALTH & MAXWELL BARDE V. HON. MINISTER ORS (2017) LPELR ? 42998 and submitted that the order striking out the suit on the two vital appealable grounds remain valid and extant, as such the Judgment of 24th July, 2017 on those grounds should be allowed to stay undisturbed.
According to Counsel, if the Appellant lacked the locus standi to sue the Respondents, thus depriving the Court below of jurisdiction, being a condition precedent, the Appellant cannot have the locus standi to pursue this Appeal and this Court equally lacks the jurisdiction to disturb those findings in the absence of any challenge thereto before this noble court. He referred to BHOJSONS PLC V. KALIO (2006) LPELR 777 at 35 ? 36 (SC). That this Appeal is an abuse of Court process, frivolous and is wanting in legal foundation; he urged the Court to resolve issue one of the Preliminary objection in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and dismiss the Appeal.
7
On issue number two, learned counsel referred to ground two of the Notice of Appeal which spans from Pages 661 ? 695 of the Printed Record and the particulars thereto and submitted that the function of the particulars of any ground of Appeal is to highlight the real and actual nature of the complaint; as such to properly discern a ground of Appeal, the ground and its particulars must be read together. He referred to FEDERAL ROAD SAFETY CORPS & AR V. OKEBU GIDEON Esq. (2015) LPELR ? 41830 (CA). That the complaint as encapsulated in ground 2 is that the lower Court struck out paragraphs 9, 10 (b), (c) and 11 of the supporting affidavit of the originating summons after the documents were produced by the clerk of the second Respondent upon the issuance of subpoena duces tecum; but same was rejected by the lower Court. That the alleged striking out of the paragraphs of the affidavit is the grievance of the Appellant.
According to counsel, the question provoked at this stage, is whether the complaint against the lower Court as borne out of the ground under reference is correct or not. That the allegation in the judgment clearly reveals that the complaint
8
is unfounded and incorrect. That no such paragraphs of the supporting affidavit was struck out upon the rejection of the documents produced by the clerk of the House of Assembly in the Judgment of 24/07/2017.
That Paragraphs 9, 10 (b) (c) and 11 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons were struck out for offending Sections 115 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as reflected at Page 671 of the Printed Record. Learned Counsel further submitted that the 1st and 2nd Respondents under preliminary issue three attacked Exhibits MM1, MM2, MM3, MM4 and MM5 on the ground that they were not signed; that the lower Court sustained the objection and discountenanced with Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit. He referred to Pages 674 ? 675 of the Printed Record. He urged the Court to uphold the Preliminary objection.
The 3rd Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 27/08/2018. It is predicated on three grounds: –
GROUND ONE
That grounds two and four of the Appellant?s Notice of Appeal do not relate to the decision of the trial High Court delivered on 24/04/2017 and therefore incompetent.
9
GROUND TWO
That the Appellant?s issues 2 and 4 purportedly distilled from grounds 2 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal are incompetent, same having been formulated from incompetent grounds.
GROUND THREE
That the Appellant?s Appeal is an academic exercise on the ground that he did not Appeal against the decision of the trial High Court to the effect that the Appellant lacks the locus standi to institute the action. Thus, even if all the issues formulated by the Appellant are resolved in his favour, it will not lead to a reversal of the decision of the trial Court.
Arguing the Preliminary Objection at Pages 6 to 15 of the 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument, learned counsel formulated two issues for determination:-
1) Whether grounds two and four contained in the Appellant?s Notice of Appeal as well as Appellant?s issues two and four formulated from the said grounds are competent in law. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection
2) Whether having regard to the clear and unequivocal finding of the trial Court the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute this action against the
10
Respondents, which finding has not been appealed against; whether this Appeal is not a mere academic exercise and waste of precious judicial time. (Distilled from ground 3 of the P/objection)
According to Counsel, the Appellant?s Notice of Appeal is at Pages 696 ? 700 of the printed record. That it is trite that for any ground of Appeal to be competent and activate the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court to entertain same, it must relate to the ratio decidendi of the Judgment appealed against; spelt out in clear terms the Judgment appealed against and lay out the particulars of complaint in support of the appealed decision. He referred to K.R.K HOLDINGS NIG. LTD V. F.B.N. LTD & ANOR (2017) VOL. 24 LRCN 129 @ 148 Paragraph A. That the Appellant?s ground of Appeal falls short of the requirements of a valid ground of Appeal. According to Counsel, the Judgment appealed against was delivered by the trial Court on 24/07/2017. That having regards to the Appellant?s ground two, there is nowhere in the said Judgment where the trial Court struck out paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (b) (c) and 11 of the affidavit evidence in support of the
11
originating summons because the documents annexed thereto were not certified. He referred to the holding of the trial Court at Page 671 of the Printed Record.
More so Counsel argued, the purported particulars of error to the Appellants grounds two and four do not emanate from the facts of the decision of the trial Court delivered on 24/07/2017. He referred to ABE V. UNILORIN (2013) 16 NWLR (Part 1379) 183 at 206 Paragraph D and urged the Court to strike out grounds two and four in the Appellant?s Notice of Appeal. He further submitted that issues two and four formulated by the Appellant for determination with the arguments there to distilled from the incompetent grounds of Appeal are also incompetent; and cited MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED V. JOHNSON & ORS (2018) LPELR ? 44359 (SC).
On issue two, Counsel submitted that the Appellant claimed to have served as Deputy Governor of Taraba State following the purported removal from office of the then duly elected Deputy Governor by the State House of Assembly, and as acting Governor of Taraba State due to the injury sustained by the then Governor, Danbaba Danfulani Suntai in a plane
12
crash. That according to the Appellant he qualified then to be paid entitlements as former Deputy/Acting Governor of the State as provided by law.
According to Counsel in the affidavit in support of the Appellant?s originating process, he attached Exhibit MM4 which is a certified true copy of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case between ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI V. BARRISTER NASIRU AUDU DANGIRI & 6 ORS in Suit No. SC/416/2013 wherein the Apex Court set aside the purported removal or impeachment of Alhaji Abubakar Danladi from office as Deputy Governor of Taraba State; and categorically stated that at all material time, Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi remained the Deputy Governor of the State and also ordered his immediate resumption of office as Deputy Governor. Counsel submitted that the trial Court struck out the offending paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the originating process and further held that the Appellant cannot escape the venom of his Exhibit MM4 which paints him as an interloper. He referred to Pages 684 ? 685 of the printed record. According to Counsel, despite the legal consequences of the finding of
13
the trial Court at pages 684 ? 685 of the printed record, the Appellant did not Appeal against it. That such decision is therefore valid, subsisting and bind all parties and the Court. He referred to APGA V. ANYANWU & ORS (2014) LRCN 1 at 33 Paragraphs A ? F.
Counsel further submitted that although grounds 1 and 3 and issues 1 and 3 distilled there from are competent; the resolution of those issues will not lead to the reversal of the decision of the lower Court but will tantamount to a mere academic exercise. He referred to ARDO V. INEC & ORS (2017) LPELR ? 41919 (SC). In the instant Appeal, Counsel argued the trial Court found at Pages 681 ? 685 of the printed record that by the force of Appellant?s Exhibit MM4 (also reported as (2014) LPELR ? 24020 (SC) the Appellant was never at any point in time, in the eyes of the law a Deputy Governor of Taraba State and therefore has no cause of action against the Respondents; and consequently lacked the locus standi to institute the action he did. That the failure of the Appellant to Appeal against that finding of the lower Court, shows that he has conceded that he was
14
never in the eyes of the law a Deputy/Acting Governor of Taraba State. As such he has no cause of action against the Respondents and bereft of the locus standi to institute this action. Consequently he submitted, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal.
He urged this Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out the Appeal. It is important to note that the Appellant has not responded by way of a reply brief to the Preliminary Objection of the Respondents. As I stated earlier in this Judgment that I will determine the Preliminary Objection first; if it is sustained the Appeal ends there. If on the other hand it is overruled, I will then proceed to determine the main Appeal.
As regards the ground of the Preliminary Objection that grounds two and four of the Notice of Appeal do not relate to the decision of 24/07/2017 appealed against as could be gleaned from the Notice of Appeal dated the 24th day of July 2017 and filed on 11th September, 2017; for clarity purposes the Notice of Appeal is reproduced hereunder:-
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Taraba State
15
High Court of Justice sitting at Jalingo contained in the Judgment delivered on 24th July, 2017 Coram Honourable Justice J. L. Agya doth hereby Appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the Appeal seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the case of the Appellant is an abuse of Court process.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The trial Court held that the suit of the Appellant is an abuse of Court process because of the pendency of Suit No. NICN/JOS/26/2016 at the National Industrial Court sitting in Jos.
2) Whereas the suit before the lower Court was an originating summons seeking the determination of some questions as to the validity of the Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor?s Pension Law No. 3 2015 vis a vis the 1999 Constitution as (amended) the case at the National Industrial Court is seeking orders compelling the Taraba State Government to pay the Appellant his benefits as a former Deputy Governor and Acting Governor respectively.
3) The claims in both Courts below are exclusive and
16
both cannot be maintained in either the National Industrial Court or the Court.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when he struck out paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (b) & (c) and 11 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons because the documents annexed thereto were not certified.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The Appellant applied for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to compel the clerk of the Taraba State House of Assembly to produce certified copies of the said documents which application was granted by the learned trial judge and they were so produced.
2) Upon production of the said documents, the learned trial judge decided to reject them.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the suit of the Appellant was caught up by the provisions of the Public Officers (Protection) Law of Taraba State.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) Whereas Section 2(a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Law Cap 115 Laws of Taraba State 1997 provides that where an action is commenced against a person for an act done in pursuance or execution of a public duty or authority, such action must be
17
instituted within a period of 3 months next after the ceasing of the act thereof.
2) One of the exceptions to the said rule is where there is a continuance of damage or injury.
3) The continuance of damage or injury here is the continuance existence or enforcement of the Taraba State Governor or Deputy Governor?s Pension Law No 3 of 2015.
4) The suit of the Appellant therefore falls within the exception to the general rule.
GROUND FOUR
The learned trial judge erred in law when he rejected Exhibits MM1, MM2, MM3 and MM4 which said rejection has occasioned grave miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The Appellant has applied to the trial judge for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum against the Clerk of the Taraba State House of Assembly to produce the following documents:-
a) Proceedings of the Taraba State House of Assembly No 027 dated 5th October, 2012.
b) Proceedings of the Taraba State House of Assembly No 035 dated 14th November, 2012.
c) Proceedings of Taraba State House of Assembly No 010 dated 15th October, 2014.
d) The Taraba State Governor and Deputy Governor?s
18
Pension Law No 3 of 2015.
2) Pursuant to the above, the trial judge granted the application on 29th March 2017 and the subpoena was served on the Clerk.
3) However when the said documents were brought before the lower Court, the trial judge rejected same.
4) If the same document had been admitted by the trial judge, the decision of the trial Court would have been different.
By the above Notice of Appeal, the Judgment appealed against is that of the trial Court delivered on 24th July, 2017. As regards the Appellant?s Ground 2 this is what the lower Court held as shown at Page 671 of the printed record thus:-
?With this guide in mind there is no doubt that paragraphs 9, 10(b), (c) and 11 of the supporting affidavit which I have reproduced are either submissions which Counsel ought to urge upon the Court or conclusions upon issues which ought to be left to the discretion of the Court to either make a finding or to reach a decision upon. They are either legal arguments which ought to be pressed by Counsel in oral argument or they are legal conclusions which ought not to be drawn by a witness but left for the Court to reach.
19
Paragraphs 9, 10(b) (c) and 11 of the supporting affidavit no doubt offend Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. They are liable to be struck out. Same are hereby struck out.?
It is therefore crystal clear that the above constitutes the grounds, reason or ratio upon which paragraphs 9, 10(b), (c) and 11 of the supporting affidavit of the Appellant?s originating summons were struck out by the lower Court contrary to the complaint in Appellant?s Ground two that:-
The learned trial judge erred in law when he struck out paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (b) and (c) and 11 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons because the documents annexed thereto were not certified.”
I have carefully gone through the printed Record of Appeal but could not find where such decision is arrived at by the lower Court as alleged by the Appellant. Furthermore, the particulars of error to the Appellant?s Ground two which I reproduced earlier in this Judgment do not emanate from the decision of the trial Court delivered on 24/07/2017. In ABE V. UNILORIN (Supra) at Page 205 Paragraphs F-H the Apex Court held that:-
20
Where a ground of Appeal is defective or the particulars do not flow there from or related thereto, such a ground or particular or particulars are liable to striking out. Once the ground or one or more of its particulars are liable to striking out the remaining particular or particulars as well as the ground itself are rendered otiose, because it is not the duty of the Court to extend hands of fellowship to one of the parties by assisting him to carry out a surgical operation of that party?s ground of Appeal by excising the defective part from it.?
The particulars of error to Appellant?s Ground four do not also emanate from the decision of the trial Court delivered on 24/07/2017. They are therefore incompetent as they do not arise from the facts of the Judgment of the lower Court.
In the same vein, issues 2 and 4 for determination formulated by the Appellant with the arguments thereto which were distilled from the incompetent Grounds of Appeal are also struck out. See MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED V. OKON JOHNSON & ORS. (2018) LPELR ? 44359 (SC). The Appellant claimed to have served as Deputy
21
Governor following the purported removal from office of the then duly elected Deputy Governor of Taraba State by the State House of Assembly. According to the Appellant, he qualified to be paid entitlements as former Deputy Governor of the State as provided by law. This Court observed that the document attached to the affidavit in support of the Appellant?s originating process is Exhibit MM4 which is the certified true copy of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case between Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi V. Barrister Nasiru Audu Dangiri & 6 Ors in Suit No. SC 416/2013 wherein the Apex Court set aside the purported removal of Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi from office as Deputy Governor of Taraba State and categorically stated that at all material time, Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi remained the Deputy Governor of the State and also ordered his immediate resumption of office as Deputy Governor.
The Supreme Court Held per Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta JSC :-
I hereby order that the entire proceedings of the panel that purported at the instance of the Taraba State House of Assembly to investigate the allegation of gross misconduct made by
22
the House against the Appellant, the Deputy Governor of Taraba State, up to and including the incomplete and edited report relied on in removing the Appellant by the house be and is hereby declared null and void and of no legal or factual consequence whatsoever. In effect at all material times, the Appellant Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi remained and still remains the Deputy Governor of Taraba State and he is to resume his interrupted duties of his office forthwith.?
In light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the lower Court held at Pages 684 ? 685 of the Record of Appeal thus:-
The question now is if Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi remained the Deputy Governor of Taraba State at all material times, can the Plaintiff be said to have ever been the Deputy Governor of Taraba State in the eyes of the law. The answer in my humble a capital NO! If the Plaintiff has never legally occupied the office of the Deputy Governor of Taraba State as I have just found he cannot in the same vein be a beneficiary of Section 124 (5) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 3 (1) of the Taraba State Governor and Deputy
23
Governors Pensions Law No. 3 of 2015. This is so because once an act is declared null and void and of no legal consequence, every right tied to it is extinguished as one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it will collapse.
No legal right can therefore be hoisted on any claim arising from a null and void act like the purported appointment of the Plaintiff as Deputy Governor of Taraba State. See BILLY IKPONGETTE V. C.O.P. AKWA IBOM STATE (2009) AFWLR (Part 471) 996 . I agree with the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the Plaintiff was a mere usurper of the office of the Deputy Governor of Taraba Statethe Plaintiff still has no cause of action against the Defendants and consequently lacks the locus standi to institute this action.”
I have carefully studied the Notice of Appeal and discovered that the Plaintiff did not Appeal against the above decision of the trial Court. The law is well settled that a decision or finding of Court on any point of law or fact which is not appealed against is valid, subsisting and binding on the parties.
24
In APGA V. ANYANWU & ORS (2014) VOL 231 LRCN 1 @ 33 Paragraphs A ? F the Apex Court held that:-
It is settled principle of law that a decision on any point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed to have been conceded by the party against whom it was decided and it remains valid and binding on all parties.?
It therefore follows that the Appellant having conceded to the finding of the lower Court by not appealing against same, his Appeal before this Court becomes a mere academic exercise. Furthermore, having conceded that he was never in the eyes of the law a Deputy Governor of Taraba State, he has no locus standi to institute this action;such as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal. In the circumstances therefore, the Preliminary Objection is upheld. The Appeal is accordingly struck out for being incompetent.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I agree.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero JCA.
For the reasons contained in the judgment which I adopt as mine, I too strike out the appeal.
25
Appearances:
For Appellant(s)
E. A. Ibrahim, Esq. with him, K. C. Ezugwu, Esq., Rejoice Madaki, Esq., and P. F. Asuquo, Esq. for 1st & 2nd Respondents.
Y. N. Akirikwen (Hon. Attorney General, Taraba State) with him, A. D. Mustapha, Esq. (Senior State Counsel), and A. S. Sani, Esq. (State Counsel 1) for 3rd RespondentFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
E. A. Ibrahim, Esq. with him, K. C. Ezugwu, Esq., Rejoice Madaki, Esq., P. F. Asuquo, Esq. for 1st & 2nd Respondents.
Y. N. Akirikwen (Hon. Attorney General, Taraba State) with him, A. D. Mustapha, Esq. (Senior State Counsel), A. S. Sani, Esq. (State Counsel 1) for 3rd RespondentFor Respondent
