LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ANKUMA v. SULEIMAN & ANOR (2022)

ANKUMA v. SULEIMAN & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16225(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 18, 2022

CA/K/476/2017(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Fatima Omoro Akinbami Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

JUSTICE SHITTU ANKUMA APPELANT(S)

And

1. M. Y. SULEIMAN 2. DANIEL HASSAN DIBI RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CAN MAKE AN ORDER IN VAIN

It is elementary that the Courts does not make an order in vain. In the case of Ekpenyong v. Nyon (1975) 2 SC 71. The Supreme Court held thus:
“It seems to us though, that there is yet need for us to restate this principle of law, which is also rule of prudence.
We take the view that, as far as possible the Courts should desist from making orders which would be ineffective, impotent or abortive. Like nature, the Courts should do nothing in vain.”
 PER TALBA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN GRANT A STAY OF EXECUTION OVER A COMPLETED ACT

The Court will not grant a stay of execution over a completed act. A stay of execution can only be sought pending the occurrence of a particular legal act. i.e pending appeal. See Olayinka v. Elusanmi (1971) 1 NMLR 277 (SC). A judgment which has not been appealed against or set aside or otherwise legally challenged constitutes res judicata as between the parties. It is improper and legally ineffective for the Court to make an order for stay of execution of such judgment unless the order is made pending the incidence of a certain legal occurrence or else made in consequence of an appeal against the judgment. See Olayinka v. Elusanmi (Supra). PER TALBA, J.C.A.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): By a motion on Notice filed on 8th September, 2020 and brought pursuant to Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the applicants seek for the following reliefs:
1. An order of this Honourable Court striking out/dismissing Appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 between M. Y. SULEIMAN & 1 OR V. JUSTICE SHITTU ANKUMA for being academic.
2. Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary to make in the circumstances of this case.

The grounds for the application are as follows:
a. This Appeal as constituted is against the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna delivered on 12th April, 2017.
b. The grouse of the Appellant in this appeal is against the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna dated 12th April, 2017 dismissing Appeal No.: CCA/KAD/KAF/10A/2017 between M. Y. SULEIMAN and SHITTU ANKUMA (now deceased).
​c. The appeal before the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna was against the ruling of Upper Customary Court Kwoi, Kaduna State dated 22/2/2017 refusing an application for the stay of execution of judgment in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DANDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN.
d. The Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna had on 17/6/2009 in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DANDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN set aside the judgment of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi, Kaduna in Suit No. UCC/KW/CV/6/2004 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DANDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN.
e. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of CCA/KAD/KAF/100A/2009 and filed a Notice of Appeal against same on 11/9/2009 through their solicitors Messrs Emmanuel Toro & Company.
f. The Record of Appeal was deemed compiled and transmitted to this Honourable Court on 29/4/2014 with an Appeal No. CA/K/137/2010.
g. The Respondent in the said Appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 filed a Motion on Notice on 10/07/2015 for an order dismissing the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.
h. This Honourable Court on 29th October, 2015 heard and granted the application and thereby dismissed the appeal.
i. The 2nd Respondent who substituted the 1st Appellant in the dismissed appeal No. CA/K/137/2010, filed an application seeking to relist the appeal vied motion No. CA/K/618/M/2017 but same was dismissed by this Honourable Court on the 18th April, 2019.
j. The orders of this Honourable Court in appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 and CA/K/618/M/2017 are extant and subsisting.
k. The substantive appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 upon which this appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 is hinged had been dismissed together with the prayer for relisting of same.
l. There is no pedestal upon which this appeal can stand.
m. The Appeal as constituted before this Honourable Court is purely academic and any outcome therefrom is futility.
n. This Honourable Court cannot be allowed to dissipate its precious time on frivolities.
o. This appeal is unconstitutional, vexatious, frivolous, and gross abuse of judicial Court processes liable to be dismissed.

​The motion is supported by a 6 paragraph affidavit. Paragraphs 4 a-l and 5 reads:
4. That I have been informed by PANSHAK K. AUDU ESQ, of counsel in our law firm on 7/9/2020 at about 10:00am and I verily believe him as true as follows:-
a. That this Appeal is against the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna delivered on 12th April, 2017.
b. That the Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna on 12th April, 2017 dismissed the said Appeal No.: CCA/KAD/KAF/10A/2017 between M. Y. SULEIMAN and SHITTU ANKUMA (now deceased). A copy of the said judgment is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit A.
c. That the appeal before the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna was against the ruling of Upper Customary Court Kwoi, Kaduna State dated 22/2/2017 refusing an application for a stay of execution of judgment in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DABDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN. A copy of the ruling of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi, Kaduna is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit B.
d. That the Customary Court of Appeal, Kaduna had on 17/6/2009 in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DANDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN set aside the judgment of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi, Kaduna in Suit No. UCC/KW/CV/6/2004 between SHITTU ANKUMA v. HASSAN DANDIBI & M. Y. SULEIMAN.
e. That the Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of CCA/KAD/KAF/100A/2009 and filed a Notice of Appeal against same on 11/9/2009 through their solicitors Messrs. Emmanuel Toro & Company.
f. That the Record of Appeal was deemed compiled and transmitted to this Honourable Court on 29/4/2014 with an appeal No. CA/K/137/2010.
g. That the Respondent in the said Appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 filed a Motion on Notice on 10/07/2015 for an order dismissing the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.
h. That this Honourable Court on 29th October, 2015 heard and granted the application and thereby dismissed the appeal. A copy of the order of this Honourable Court dated 29/10/2015 is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit C.
i. That the 2nd Respondent who substituted the 1st Appellant in the dismissed appeal No. CA/137/2010, filed an application seeking to relist the appeal vied Motion No. CA/K/618/M/2017 but same dismissed by this Honourable Court on the 18th April, 2019. A copy of the ruling of this Honourable Court is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit D.
j. That the orders of this Honourable Court in appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 and CA/K/618/2017 are extant and subsisting.
k. That the substantive appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 upon which this appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 is hinged has been dismissed together with the prayer for relisting of same.
l. That this appeal is vexatious, frivolous and gross abuse of judicial processes.
5. That it is in the interest of Justice to grant this application as the Respondent would not be prejudiced on account thereof.

Attached to the affidavit are four exhibits marked as exhibits A-D. Exhibit A is the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna State, Kafanchan Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice Luka Gwaza Maza on 12th April, 2012. Exhibit B is the Ruling of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi delivered on 22nd February, 2017. Exhibit C is the enrolled order of this Court granted on the 29th October, 2015. Exhibit D is the Ruling of this Court delivered on 18th April, 2019.

In response, the respondent filed 3 paragraph counter affidavit on the 12th of October, 2020. Paragraph 2 a-p reads:
“2a. The history of this case narrated from paragraph 4(a) to (j) of the applicants’ affidavit are true save that they stop short of stating the peculiarity of the appeal sought to be dismissed by this application from any other matter for the stay of execution of a judgment.
b. The appeal sought to be dismissed by this application contained in CA/K/476/2017 between the applicant/respondent and the respondents/appellants is one that seeks for stay of execution on the unique and peculiar ground that the judgment creditor/applicant agreed on the 3/9/2010 to sale to the first respondent in this application i.e M. Y. Suleiman the said land that is subject matter of this appeal and on the condition of the two of the judgment debtors pay for the land.
c. Pursuant to the agreement of 3/8/2010 M. Y. Suleiman paid to the judgment creditor the sum of one million six hundred thousand naira (N1.6 M) as his part of the three million naira agreed for the entire land leaving the second judgment debtor (now deceased but substituted with his son the second respondent to this application) to pay the part that fail to him i.e one million four hundred thousand naira (N1.4M) as agreed.
d. Pursuant to the payment of his part, the first respondent to this application was granted permission by the judgment creditor to remain in possession of the land that the judgment of Customary Court of Appeal in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 referred to in paragraph 4(e) of the affidavit in support of this application was awarded in his favour and expressly permitted the first respondent to continue building his house thereon.
e. The contention of the 1st respondent to this application in the appeal sought to be struck out by this application is that the land having been agreed to be sold to him by the judgment creditor and applicant in this application and that having paid the money due to the judgment creditor from him and expressly permitted by the judgment creditor to build, the judgment creditor has a remedy against the 2nd judgment debtor who was yet to meet his own obligation as summarized in ground two of the notice of appeal in CA/K/476/2017 of page 134 of the Record of Appeal before this Court; the said notice of appeal containing this ground and other grounds is attached as Ex. “A‟ to this affidavit.
f. The issue sought to be canvassed before this Court in the appeal sought to be dismissed by this application on the ground that it is a mere ‘academic exercise’ is whether a judgment creditor who has agreed to sell the subject matter of judgment and collected part of his money from the judgment debtor who he had pursuant to the said sale also permitted to remain in possession and build on the land is not estopped from asking for the execution of the said judgment and required to ask for the balance of his money from the defaulting judgment debtor.
g. Their arguments in the brief of the appeal with authorities cited include arguments as to whether in such a case such as in the appeal sought to be dismissed, a pending appeal is a condition for the grant of stay.
h. In response to paragraph 4(k) of the affidavit in support of the application before this Court, the ruling of this Honourable Court refusing to relist appeal number CA/K/137/2010 on the notice of appeal is Exhibit “B‟ hereto and the brief of the appellant has been filed at the Supreme Court as shown by EX, “C” hereto.
i. The issue of jurisdiction by the application of the statute of limitation raised on 95 of the record of appeal in CA/K/476/2017 sought to be dismissed by this application was not addressed in the judgment of the trial Court, not raised let alone been addressed before the Customary Court of Appeal but is now sought to be raised in the appeal sought to be struck out and that the said page 95 of the record of appeal is EX. “E‟ hereto.
j. The facts and circumstances of the peculiarity of the appeal sought to be dismissed by this application are contained on the affidavit in support of the application for stay before the trial judge and the further and better affidavit thereto that are contained on pages 24 to 30 and 83 to 87 of the records of the appeal in CA/K/476/2017 pending before this Honourable Court respectively.
k. The thrust of the contention in the appeal sought to be struck out by this application is essentially going to be whether in the circumstances of the application that led to the appeal in CA/K/476/2017 an order of stay cannot lie even in the absence of an appeal as contained in their brief of argument dated 31/08/2017 and filed on the 08/09/2017 and their reply brief dated 20/10/2017 and filed on the 25/10/2017 that is pending before this Court.
l. In addition to the issue of jurisdiction on grounds of the statute of limitation, an additional ground of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the land that is subject matter of judgment by the trial Upper Customary Court, Kwoi was a land in Urban Area and consequently, the trial Court had no jurisdiction.
m. He has never been dispossessed of his house by means of EX. “E” to the further and better affidavit of the applicant which has long been abandoned since when the trial Court discovered that an appeal in CA/K/476/2017 was pending before this Court on stay of execution and that no one has called on him from the trial Court or any other Court to surrender the key to his house in execution of any judgment especially that no monetary judgment has been delivered against him by the trial Court or any other Court in favour of the judgment creditor.
n. He moved to quash EX. E to the applicant further and better affidavit for the principal reason that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue it in the circumstances there being no monetary judgment against him.
o. He has been in possession of his house that the subject matter of the dispute and which is an immovable property free from any harassment from any person or authority.
p. He has remained strengthened to keep possession of the house since the applicant and the Court below know that when proceedings for stay of execution are pending they cannot execute judgment and have never ask for the keys to his house where till all his household equipment are still there.”

The respondent attached the notice of appeal against the ruling of this Court to the Supreme Court, exhibit B and the brief of argument filed at the Supreme Court exhibit C. The applicant filed a further affidavit on 24th September, 2020. It’s a seven paragraph further affidavit. Paragraph 5 a-e reads:
“5a. That there is need to depose to this further affidavit.
b. That after the judgment of Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna in CCA/KAD/KAF/10A/2017 leading to this appeal, the Respondent took steps and executed the judgment of CCA/KAD/KAF/100A/2009. A copy of the writ of Attachment dated 26/06/2018 is herewith annexed and marked Exhibit E.
c. That an attempt by the 1st Appellant/Respondent to set aside the attachment and the execution (Exhibit E) before the High Court of Justice Kaduna in Suit No. KDH/KAD/712/2018 was unsuccessful as the Court ruled on a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent/Applicant and declined jurisdiction. Copies of the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent in Suit No. KDH/KAD/712/2018 and the ruling upon same are herewith annexed and marked Exhibits F1 and F2 respectively.
d. That after the ruling aforesaid in paragraph C, the Respondents have not visited any other Court for the same purpose.
e. That the Respondent/Applicant had since been in possession of the subject matter (land) of this appeal.”

Attached to the further affidavit are three exhibits marked as exhibits E, F1 and F2. Exhibit E is a writ of Attachment dated 26/06/2018. Exhibits F1 and F2 are copies of reliefs sought by the 1st respondent in Suit No.: KDH/KAD/712/2018 and the Ruling on the Preliminary Objection respectively.

The application being contentious, the counsel were ordered to file written addresses. At the hearing of the application on the 24th of November, 2021 T. I. John Adopted the respondent/applicant’s written address filed on 19th of November, 2020 and the reply address filed on 26th January, 2021. And P. K. Audu adopted the appellant/respondents written address filed on 15th December, 2020.

In his written address, the respondent/applicant submitted a lone issue for determination thus:
Whether from the antecedents giving rise to this appeal, the intervening circumstance vis–a–viz the reliefs being sought by the appellants/respondents this appeal as constituted is not academic.

In the appellants/respondents written address, two issues were submitted for determination thus;
1. Whether by the nature of the appeal number CA/K/476/2017 where the first appellant seeks a remedy against the execution of a judgment that the judgment creditor had agreed to sell at a price, collected money due to him from first applicant/respondent and permitted him to build on the land to completion does not provide a live issue for the determination of this Court, whether or not there is a substantive appeal pending.
2. Whether the two issues of jurisdiction raised but never resolved in the records of appeal and that are sought to be proved can ever lately raised or rightly be disallowed in the appeal sought to be struck out.

I adopt the sole issue submitted by the respondent/applicant. I have critically given due consideration to the copious submissions of learned counsel for and against this application which in the main seeks for an order striking out/dismissing Appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 between M. Y. Suleiman & Anor. v. Justice Shittu Ankuma for being academic. Paragraph 4(k) of the affidavit in support of this application reads thus:
“That the substantive appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 upon which this appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 is hinged has been dismissed together with the prayer for relisting of same.”

The background facts of the case is that the respondent/applicants father Shittu Ankuma (now deceased) initiated a suit against one Hassan Dandibi also known as Dibil (also deceased) and substituted with the 2nd appellant/respondent Daniel Hassan Dibi and the 1st appellant/respondent M. Y. Suleiman, before the Upper Customary Court Kwoi Jaba Local Government Area of Kaduna State in suit No. KW/CV/6/2004 for a declaration of title to his piece of land which the said late Hassan Dibi sold to the 1st appellant/respondent. The trial Upper Customary Court Kwoi in its Judgment dated 21/11/2008 dismissed the Respondent’s claim. The respondent then appealed the judgment to the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna by a notice of appeal dated 7/4/2009 in appeal No. CCA/KAD/100A/2009. In its judgment dated 17/6/2009, the Customary Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granted the respondent’s claim and set aside the judgment of the trial Upper Customary Court Kwoi. The appellants/respondents appealed the judgment of the Customary Court of appeal dated 17/6/2009 to this Court vide a notice of appeal dated 11/9/2009 in appeal No. CA/K/137/2010. This Court on 29/10/2015 upon an application filed by counsel to the respondent/applicants dismissed the appellant/respondent’s appeal for want of diligent prosecution. (See Exhibit C attached to this motion). The 2nd respondent who substituted the 1st appellant in the dismissed appeal No. CA/K/137/2010 filed an application seeking to relist the appeal vide a motion No. CA/K/618/M/2017. The said application for relisting was dismissed by this Court on the 18th/4/2019. (See Exhibit D attached to this motion).

​Now the respondents/applicants took steps to enforce the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal before the trial Upper Customary Court Kwoi. The appellants/respondents filed a motion on notice seeking to stay the execution of the judgment without any pending appeal. The Upper Customary Court Kwoi in its ruling dated 22/02/2017 refused the stay and dismissed the application. The 1st appellant/respondent appealed against the decision of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi, refusing the application for stay, to the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna vide a notice of appeal/amended notice of appeal dated 6/3/2017. The Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna dismissed the appeal hence this appeal to this Court vide a notice of appeal dated 21/6/2017.

However, after the dismissal of the appeal for stay of execution at the Customary Court of Appeal Kaduna and before the filing of this appeal, the respondent took steps and executed the judgment in CCA/KAD/KAF/100A/2009 and had taken possession (see Exhibit E attached to the further affidavit in support of this application). The appellants sought to set aside the said execution before the High Court of Justice Kaduna in suit No: No. KDH/KAD/712/2018 but the Court declined Jurisdiction upon an objection raised by the respondent/applicant (See exhibits F1 and F2 attached to the further affidavit in support of this application).

​The crux of this appeal is to stay the execution of the judgment of the customary Court of Appeal in CCA/KAD/100A/2009 in which the substantive appeal against same in appeal No: CA/K/137/2010 was dismissed by this Court and the application sought to set aside the dismissal and to relist the appeal, which was equally dismissed by this Court. It is an appeal for stay of execution which has been already executed. There is also no valid and subsisting appeal at the Supreme Court.

The respondent/applicant’s counsel submitted that this appeal having lacked in foundation has now become academic and liable to be dismissed. As to what constitutes an academic suit or appeal, learned counsel referred to the case of Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) EJSC Vol. 135 page 47 para A – B per M. U. Peter Odili JSC.

While opposing this application the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents submitted that the application for stay of execution was not predicated on an existing appeal ipso facto, but also on the fact that since the judgment creditor had sold the subject matter of the judgment debt i.e the land in dispute to the 1st judgment debtor and collected money from him and permitted him to build by the affidavit in support of the application the judgment creditor was estopped from executing the judgment.

Secondly, the appeal against the judgment of Customary Court of Appeal in CA/K/137/2010 which was dismissed for want of diligent prosecution and an application for its relisting refused by this Court has already been appealed against to the Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted further that the appeal sought to be struck out presents an issue that this Court is called upon to determine without the necessity of a pending appeal or efforts towards pursuing an appeal against the main judgment, and that since the appeal seeks this Court to determine whether the circumstances of a sale by a judgment creditor of the subject matter of the judgment to the respondent/judgment debtor who also granted the judgment debtor/buyer permission to remain in possession and build the subject matter of a judgment creditor to completion will not estop a judgment creditor from executing the judgment in the face of the affidavit evidence available before an appellate Court.

​The learned counsel contended that by the notice of appeal that is exhibit B attached to the respondents counter-affidavit, there is the effort to pursue an appeal. He submitted that proceedings for stay of execution of a judgment where a judgment creditor that has permitted a judgment debtor to remain in possession of the subject matter of a judgment debt, build it to completion, received such a judgment debtor’s part of the consideration to be paid but later wants to execute the judgment present a life issue for the determination of the Court with or without a subsisting appeal against such a judgment to wit whether he is not estopped by his conduct to do so.

Without much ado, the appellants/respondents concede to the fact that the application for stay of execution was not predicated on an existing appeal. The learned counsel also concede that the appeal against the judgment of the customary Court of Appeal in CA/K/137/2010 which was dismissed for want to diligent prosecution and the application for relisting which was refused by this Court are subjects of appeal before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel equally concede to the fact that the appeal sought to be struck out present an issue that this Court is called to determine without the necessity of a pending appeal or efforts towards pursuing an appeal against the main judgment. His reasons being that this Court is called upon by this appeal to determine whether the circumstances of a sale by a judgment creditor of the subject matter of the judgment to the respondent/judgment debtor who also granted the judgment debtor/buyer permission to remain in possession and build the subject matter of a judgment creditor to completion will not estop a judgment creditor from executing the judgment in the face of the affidavit evidence available before an appellate Court, which presents a life issue before the appellate Court and should be heard on the merit. In other words, the learned appellant/respondents counsel concedes that the stay of execution which is being sought has been completed. The questions to ask are these;
1. Where does this Court derive the power to assume original jurisdiction in the instant case of an application without a pending appeal. And to determine the circumstances of a sale by a judgment creditor of the subject matter of the judgment.
2. If the appeal against the decision of this Court in Appeal No: CA/K/137/2010, is before the Supreme Court, would it not be proper to file this present appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 at the Supreme Court.
3. If execution has been completed, can the Court make an order for stay of execution on a completed act?

The jurisdiction of this Court is provided for by Sections 239 and 240 of the Constitution of the FRN 1999 (as amended). Section 239 relates to the original jurisdiction in relation to election petitions while Section 240 relates to appellate jurisdiction in relation to appeals from all the Superior Courts of record below the Court of Appeal. In view of the above provisions, it is clear that the Court of Appeal does not have original jurisdiction as envisaged by the appellant/respondent in this instant case. To that extent the appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 becomes academic.

​If the appeal against the decision of this Court in Appeal No: CA/K/137/2010 is before the Supreme Court then it is only proper for the appellant/respondent to present his case in respect of the execution of the judgment at the Supreme Court. This Court does not and will not be tempted to assume jurisdiction in a matter that is already before the Supreme Court. It is inexcusable, unpardonable and intolerable for a counsel to show gross ignorance of this basic principle. It is sad that the level of practice in this country has fallen to that extent. Members of the bar are Ministers in the temple of justice who should assist the Court in the dispensation of justice and not misguide the Court in order to satisfy the whims and caprices of their clients.

It is elementary that the Courts does not make an order in vain. In the case of Ekpenyong v. Nyon (1975) 2 SC 71. The Supreme Court held thus:
“It seems to us though, that there is yet need for us to restate this principle of law, which is also rule of prudence.
We take the view that, as far as possible the Courts should desist from making orders which would be ineffective, impotent or abortive. Like nature, the Courts should do nothing in vain.”

The Court will not grant a stay of execution over a completed act. A stay of execution can only be sought pending the occurrence of a particular legal act. i.e pending appeal. See Olayinka v. Elusanmi (1971) 1 NMLR 277 (SC). A judgment which has not been appealed against or set aside or otherwise legally challenged constitutes res judicata as between the parties. It is improper and legally ineffective for the Court to make an order for stay of execution of such judgment unless the order is made pending the incidence of a certain legal occurrence or else made in consequence of an appeal against the judgment. See Olayinka v. Elusanmi (Supra).

In sum, I agree with the submission of the respondent/applicants counsel that Appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 is academic, baseless, vexatious and a gross abuse of Court process. It is settled in plethora of cases that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an action which is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court. See Onitiri v. Mutual Aids Society SC 76/1968 Digest of the Supreme Court cases 1956-84 Vol. 9 page 533.

In consequence thereof, the application is granted. It is hereby ordered that Appeal No. CA/K/476/2017 between M. Y. Suleiman & 1 Or v. Justice Shittu Ankuma is dismissed. And a cost of N100,000.00 awarded against the appellants/respondents.

​Having dismissed Appeal No: CA/K/476/2017, the motion filed on 12th October, 2020 becomes otiose and same is struck out.

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the Ruling of my learned brother Abubakar Mahmud Talba, JCA. He has dealt in great detail with all the issues raised in the appeal, and I agree with his reasoning and conclusions in the Ruling. I have nothing useful to add, therefore adopt the Ruling as mine.

PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the Ruling of my learned brother, ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, JCA just delivered.
I agree with the judicial reasoning and conclusions reached on the issues raised, which I adopt as mine. I give my concurrence to the Ruling, and abide by the consequential orders.

Appearances:

P. K. Audu, Esq. For Appellant(s)

T. I. John, Esq. For Respondent(s)