CHINDO v. MATHEW (2022)

CHINDO v. MATHEW

(2022)LCN/16272(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, March 25, 2022

CA/G/13/2020

Before Our Lordships:

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muslim Sule Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MALACHI CHINDO APPELANT(S)

And

SOLOMON MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO:

A COURT MAY HAVE JUDICIAL POWERS BUT LACKS JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of a Court refers to the power upon a Court to decide the specific matter or issue presented before it by the parties. A Court may have judicial powers but lacks jurisdiction. When the Claimant brings a matter before a Court, the jurisdiction of the Court refers to the power of that Court to adjudicate on the matter before it and this can be determined by the writ and the statement of Claim. See Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd vs. Societe General Bank Ltd & Ors (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 230; Adetayo & Ors vs. Ademola & Ors (2010) 3-5 SC (Pt.I) 87. In A.G. Federation vs. A.G. Lagos State (2017) I SC (Pt. II) 88, the apex Court per Sanusi, JSC held:
“There is no gainsaying that issue of jurisdiction is radical and a crucial point which when raised, is challenging the competence of the Court to hear and determine the case. Any proceedings conducted by a Court which does not have jurisdiction, no matter how well or brilliantly it was conducted is a nullity. See Dapianlong vs Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (pt. 1036) 332. That is the more reason why when Court’s jurisdiction is challenged, the Court must first of all assume jurisdiction to decide whether in very clear and unambiguous terms, it has or lacks jurisdiction. See State v. Dosunmu, Manson vs Halliburton Energy Services Ltd (2007) 2 NWLR [pt.108) 211; Nnonye v Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (pt. 910) 623.
Also, where jurisdiction of a Court is challenged over a matter or suit, that Court must consider the averments of the plaintiff in his statement of claim filed before it, in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it or not.” EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF ADJUDICATION AND THE REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MATTER

This point the Supreme Court emphasized in Nwachukwu vs. Nwachukwu & Anor (2018) LPELR-44696 (SC) at pages 10-11 in these words:
“It is now settled law that jurisdiction is the life blood of adjudication in that any decision by a Court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter is a nullity no matter how well conducted. See Madukolu vs Nkemdilim 1962 NSCC 374 at 379-380.
When can it be said that a Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case. As stated earlier, the Supreme Court in the above cited case decided that for a Court to have the requisite jurisdiction to hear a matter:
(a) the Court must be properly constituted as regard numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another;
(b) the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court and there is no feature in the case that prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(c) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of the law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Jurisdiction therefore is like breath to a human being. A Court cannot entertain any matter it has no jurisdiction to. An attempt on such a matter will amount to a wasteful exercise as all the proceeding and the decision reached will be a nullity. This is why the subject of jurisdiction is so important and a Court is allowed to raise same suo motu and it can be raised at any time of the proceedings even on appeal for the first time. See First Bank vs Asikpo (2015) LPELR-25826(CA); Socio-Political Research Development vs Minister of FCT & Ors (2018) LPELR-45708 (SC). EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.

THE PROVISION OF THE LAW IN REFERS TO THE SUBJECT OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

The narrow area of law the provision in law refers to is the subject of territorial jurisdiction. This means a geographical area within which the Court has jurisdiction and beyond which it cannot exercise jurisdiction. See Golit vs IGP (2020) LPELR-50636 (SC); Audu vs A.P.C. (2019) 17 NWLR (pt 1702) 379; Mailatarki vs Tongo & Ors (2017) 5-6 SC (pt II) 132. Territorial jurisdiction is conferred by statute. See Belgore vs FRN (2021) 3 NWLR (pt 1764) 503.
Section 19 (3) being the statute creating the Area Courts has clearly stated the jurisdiction of the Area Court on land matters. I had stated the interpretation above.

Also, where jurisdiction of a Court is challenged over a matter or suit, that Court must consider the averments of the plaintiff in his statement of claim filed before it, in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it or not.” EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.

EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Gombe State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction presided over by Hon. Justices M. A. Pindigan and M. A. Haruna delivered on 4/12/2019 in the case of Solomon Mathew vs Malachi Chindo registered as Appeal No: GM/59A/2018. The case started in Kumo Area Court where the Respondent (Solomon Mathew) in this appeal was the Plaintiff in the Court of first instance claiming ownership to the farmland in dispute.

In that case, the Court of first instance that is the trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff had proved long possession and traditional history. The judgment was against the Defendant who is the Appellant in this appeal. The trial Court did not accept the defence of the Defendant that the farmland was given to the Plaintiff’s father on trust. The Defendant (Malachi Chindo) unhappy with the judgment of the trial Court which deprived him title to the farm land appealed to the Upper Area Court in Billiri. The Upper Area Court set aside the judgment of the Kumo Area Court. This means that at the Upper Area Court, the case went against the plaintiff, Respondent. The appeal was allowed. That Court accepted the story of the agreement of trust, meaning that the Plaintiff was in possession at the permission of the Defendant based on a trust agreement. There was a reversal of fortune here. The Defendant and Appellant in that appeal succeeded. The matter did not end there. The Plaintiff then proceeded to the High Court as Appellant with the Defendant as Respondent. The High Court which is the lower Court for the purpose of this appeal, allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff/Appellant before it by reversing the decision of the Upper Area Court and reinstating the decision of the Kumo Area Court. In the judgment of the Court below found at pages 116-126 of the record specifically at page 126 of the record, it was held thus:
“….This appeal succeeds and the judgment t of the Upper Area Court Billiri is hereby set aside, in its place the judgment of Kumo trial Area Court restored and affirmed.”

It is this decision that the Defendant in the trial Court, the Appellant in the Upper Area Court and Respondent in the lower Court is appealing against in this Court. Before this Court, the Defendant in the trial Court is the Appellant. This is the person of Malachi Chindo. The Respondent in this appeal is the Plaintiff in the trial Court, Respondent in the Upper Area Court in Billiri and Appellant in the lower Court. This is the person of Solomon Mathew. The decision of the lower Court is based on the premise that the clear evidence of the parties before the trial Court showed that the Respondent in this appeal has been in long possession over the farmland which the Appellant admitted. The Appellant’s case is that based on Exhibit D, which the Appellant call trust Agreement, but on the face of it titled a temporary gift, which the Respondent deny, the farmland was given to their father by the father of the Appellant. The lower Court did not agree with the Upper Area Court that Exhibit D was enough to give title of the disputed farmland to the Appellant here. In this respect, the lower Court held:
“…We are unable to agree with the lower Upper Area Court that Exhibit D can be relied upon to confer title to the farmland because it was given to the appellant grandfather in trust. Having understood that the issue of documentation came up after the death of the parties from which the claim of trust was derived from. Meaning those parties that entered into the trust did not recorded (sic) such issue of trust up to their death.”

The Appellant filed an appeal of six grounds on 16/4/2020. The grounds without the particulars are as follows:
Ground 1
The trial (Area Court II Kumo) lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit ab initio.
Ground 2
The lower Court erred in law when it relied on possession of the respondent and ignored the issue of trust as contained in Exhibit D, which error occasioned miscarriage of justice.
Ground 3
The learned Judges erred in law when they held that Exhibit D documentation came up after the death of the parties from which the claim of trust was derived from.
Ground 4
The learned Judges erred in law when they held that Exhibit D lack originality and genuinety, which error occasioned miscarriage of justice.
Ground 5
The Learned Judges erred in law when they held that it is hearsay when the Respondent told the Court that they were told that, the farmland was given to the Appellant grandfather by their grandfather.
Ground 6
The lower Court’s judgment is against the weight of evidence.

One of the main issues based on the grounds of appeal which the Appellant is challenging is the finding of the lower Court on Exhibit D. Before I consider this point, I will need to address issue one which deals on jurisdiction.

The law is settled that when the issue of jurisdiction is raised so as to avoid a wasteful journey, it is always better to deal with it first. This is a trite position of the law which in common place which does not need me to cite any case, however for completeness I refer to the following cases. See First Marina Trust Limited vs Folabi-Owolabi & Anor (2018) LPELR-46714 (CA); A.G. Rivers State vs AG Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) 3 SC 1; Chief Eugene Eneh vs NDIC & Ors (2018) LPELR-44902 (SC).

Before I start addressing or resolving the issues starting with the issue of jurisdiction as it is conventional, I will at this stage take an excursion to the briefs filed by the parties and the submission of counsel therein. The Appellant’s brief filed on 17/7/2020 deemed on 24/3/21 was settled by Ibrahim Ambore Nuhu Esq. In the said brief, Learned Counsel formulated four issues for determination. These are the four issues:
1. Whether the trial Area Court II Kumo, being a Court established to adjudicate on matters in Akko LGA of Gombe State whereas the parties and the land in dispute are both in Billiri LGA of Gombe State, is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit ab initio having regard to the provision of Section 19(3) of Area Court Edict of 1968 (Now law) and the warrant establishing the trial Court (Distilled from Ground 1).
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative whether in view of the trust agreement (Exhibit D) executed by the parties which evidence that the farmland in dispute was given to the Respondent in trust, whether the lower High Court was right in quashing the judgment of the Upper Area Court and restoring the judgment of the trial Court? (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4).
3. Whether the lower High Court erred in law when it held that the evidence of the Appellant with respect to the traditional history of the land is hearsay evidence? (Distilled from Ground 5).

4. Whether the lower High Court decision is against the weight of evidence? (Distilled from Ground 6).

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant on issue 1 that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the first place as by the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Area Court Edict 1968, the Kumo Area Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case since the farmland is situate in Payi in Billiri Local Government Area. It is the further submission of Counsel that the Kumo Area Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter since the farmland is not situated within the Akko Local Government Area. According to Counsel, it is the Billiri Area Court that has jurisdiction to have entered the case in the first instance. The Area Court with jurisdiction to entertain the case is the Biliri Area Court in the Billiri Local Government Area as the farm land is located at Payi within the Biliri Local Government and it is the submission of Counsel that consequent upon that, the case should be struck out, citing a cloud of cases including Ibrahim vs Jacob & Ors (2017) LPELR-43366 (CA); APGA vs Oye & Ors (2018) LPELR-45196 (SC); Madumere vs Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (pt 1368) 303; Opara vs Amadi (2013) 12 NWLR (pt 1369) 512; Madukolu vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587; Okafor vs A. G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (pt 200) 659. Learned Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

On issue 2, Learned Counsel answered in the negative stating in his submission that the lower Court should not have allowed oral evidence to vary the content of Exhibit D particularly when the document was admitted. The parties are therefore, to be bound by the content of Exhibit D and it is immaterial whether the Respondent denied it or not. Counsel cited Dinuola Akinbileje & Ors vs Chief Seriki Oguntobade & Ors (2013) LPELR-21965(CA); Omega Bank (Nig) Plc vs O.B.C. Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (pt 928) 547; Daspan vs Mangu Local Govt Council (2013) 2 NWLR (pt 1338) 203. In the light of Exhibit D, it is the submission of Counsel that long possession will not stand or avail the Respondent referring to Dandoka vs Jimeta (1970-72) NNLR 82; Gulma vs Bahago(1993) 1 NWLR (pt 272) 766. It is the further submission of Counsel that Exhibit D was not used as a proof of title but rather to prove the existence of the trust relationship between the parents of the parties and could pass the test of presumption pursuant to Section 162 of the Evidence Act, referring to Alhaji Isah Bachirawa vs Alhaji Shehu Abdullahi (2016) LPELR- 41170(CA).

The Learned Counsel submitted on issue 3 that the lower Court was wrong to have held that the evidence of the Appellant to the effect that he got the land from his father is hearsay evidence because that evidence falls within the exception to the hearsay rule as stated in Section 39 of the Evidence Act. Counsel cited Orjakor & Anor vs Mbachu & Anor (2019) LPELR-47713(CA).

The Learned Counsel submitted in relation to issue 4 that the decision of the lower Court affirming the decision of the Kumo Area Court was wrong as the Upper Area Court properly re-evaluated the evidence to arrive at the decision it did. On the whole, Learned Counsel urged this Court to allow the appeal.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent is Y. L. Yunusa Esq who settled the Respondent’s brief of 23/4/21 wherein four issues were formulated from the five grounds of appeal. The Respondent’s issues are not radically different from the issues formulated by the Appellant’s counsel. I will reproduce the issues for determination viz:
1. Whether the land in dispute is within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Area Court II Kumo in Akko Local Government Area of Gombe State. (Distilled from Ground 1).
2. Whether the lower Court was right to have disregarded Exhibit D1. (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4).
3. Whether the High Court erred in law when it held that the evidence of the Appellant with respect to the traditional history of the land is hearsay evidence. (Distilled from Ground 5).
4. Whether the lower High Court decision is against the weight of evidence. (Distilled from Ground 6).

Learned Counsel in addressing issue 1 does not seem to challenge the law on territorial jurisdiction but rather Counsel submitted that there is no evidence before the Court to show that the farmland in dispute is located in Billiri Local Government Area. The land according to Counsel is situated around Maiganga Coal Mine in Akko Local Government Area and therefore the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case. Counsel relying on Obasuyi vs Business Ventures (2000) 4 SCNJ 20; Ifeajuna vs Ifeajuna (2000) WRN 53 and a host of other cases submitted that the address of Counsel on the location of the farmland in dispute cannot take the place of evidence. The absence of any evidence to show that the land is in Billiri knocks off the case of the Appellant challenging jurisdiction. He urged Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.

On issue 2, Learned Counsel submitted that the lower Court was right in not giving Exhibit D any probative value as it is invalid, defective, spurious and lack originality and genuinety. The inconsistency of the evidence of the Appellant’s witness on Exhibit D, it is the submission of Counsel that the lower Court was right in arriving at its decision on Exhibit D. This is more so that the Respondent denies being a part of the making of Exhibit D and that the persons whom purportedly made it were dead when it was made. In challenging the authenticity of Exhibit D, Counsel submitted that the signature of the Respondents seem to be signed the same way which shows that it is not genuine and authentic. The failure of the Appellant to show how he or his father came about the farmland which he gave out to the Respondent’s father in Exhibit D is fatal to his case. The Appellant has a duty to prove the title of his predecessor in title and his failure to do so affected the case of the Appellant, Counsel submitted relying on Ngene vs Igbo (2000) 15 WRN 162; Mogaji vs Cadbury (Nig) Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 7) 393; Idundun vs Okumagba (1976) 9/10 SC 277. Counsel finally submitted on this point that Section 162 of the Evidence Act is not applicable.

Learned Counsel submitted on issue 3 that the traditional evidence does not meet the exception of hearsay evidence under Section 39 of the Evidence Act and since all the evidence of the Appellant are hearsay, this issue should be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

On the final issue, after relying on the evidence before the trial Court, it is the submission of Counsel that there are conflicting piece of evidence on oath and therefore they should be discontinuance. He urged Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent. On the whole, it is the submission of Counsel that the appeal lacks merit and it should be dismissed.

I have taken a brief summary of the submission of Counsel, it is now time to look at issues formulated for determination. In this appeal, both parties formulated four issues for determination which are not radically different. I will adopt the issues for determination as formulated by the learned Counsel to the Respondent. It is straight forward and covers the grounds of appeal. I will reproduce them for ease of reference.
1. Whether the land in dispute is within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Area Court II Kumo in Akko Local Government Area of Gombe State. (Distilled from Ground 1)
2. Whether the lower Court was right to have disregarded Exhibit D1. (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3 and 4)
3. Whether the High Court erred in law when it held that the evidence of the Appellant with respect to the traditional history of the land is hearsay evidence. (Distilled from Ground 5)
4. Whether the lower High Court decision is against the weight of evidence. (Distilled from Ground 6)

The first issue for determination is the issue of jurisdiction. It is important that this issue is resolved first because the resolution of this issue will determine whether we proceed further. This is because if I resolve that the trial Court or the Court of first instance had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the first place, the order will be to strike out the case which will make it unnecessary for this Court to go further to determine the other issues as they will then be academic as it relates to the appeal. A Court is not to engage in academic exercise or go on a voyage of futility. See Biyi Co Ltd vs Chief Registrar, High Court of the FTC & Anor (2021) LPELR-55872 (CA); Popoola vs State (2018) 10 NWLR (pt 1628) 485; Chief Lawson vs Elder Okoronkwo (2018) LPELR-46356 (SC).
In view of the importance of jurisdiction in the powers of a Court to determine a case, the law is that once it is raised, it must be first resolved.

In determining whether a Court has jurisdiction, the constitution of the Court, the subject matter and the procedure in instituting the action will be considered. The person presiding over the matter must be so qualified and competent, the subject matter must be matters that the law has made provision for the Court to adjudicate on, and the process by which the action is brought is within the law. This point the Supreme Court emphasized in Nwachukwu vs. Nwachukwu & Anor (2018) LPELR-44696 (SC) at pages 10-11 in these words:
“It is now settled law that jurisdiction is the life blood of adjudication in that any decision by a Court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter is a nullity no matter how well conducted. See Madukolu vs Nkemdilim 1962 NSCC 374 at 379-380.
When can it be said that a Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case. As stated earlier, the Supreme Court in the above cited case decided that for a Court to have the requisite jurisdiction to hear a matter:
(a) the Court must be properly constituted as regard numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another;
(b) the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court and there is no feature in the case that prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(c) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of the law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction .”

The issue of jurisdiction is raised for the first time in this Court in the journey of this case from the Kumo Area Court to the Upper Area Court Billiri, through the Gombe State High Court to this Court. In view of the importance of jurisdiction, this Court cannot close its eye to the subject raised in this Court for the first time. This necessitated a motion filed by the Appellant to adduce additional evidence. The said motion was contested and this Court delivered a considered ruling on 30/12/21 granting the motion, permitting the additional evidence which is the map of Billiri Local Government Area to be adduced. The map was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit NA1 following the ruling of this Court on the motion. The Exhibit was adduced as evidence to show that the location of the farmland in dispute is in Billiri Local Government, and not in Akko Local Government Area. It is important to note that, the issue of jurisdiction is bordered on the location of the farmland. The Appellant is saying that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case in the first place because the land is situated in Billiri Local Government and not Akko Local Government Area. The case of the Appellant is that the farmland in dispute is located in Payi within the Billiri Local Government Area and therefore by the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Area Court Edict of 1968 which is applicable at the time this suit was instituted in 2017 at the trial Court, only Courts within the location where the land in dispute is situated that has the jurisdiction to entertain any action over such land. The Respondent in his brief did not really challenge the position of the law but rather the facts, when it was submitted by Counsel that there is no evidence before the Court to show that the land is situate in Billiri. The Respondent on the other hand, contained in the address of Counsel submitted that the farmland is situated in Maiganga Coal Mine in Akko Local Government Area. The Respondent’s Counsel is guilty of what he accused the Appellant’s Counsel of by saying that the point raised to the effect that the land is situated in Billiri is not in evidence before the Court but rather it came up in the address of Counsel. I make bold to also say that I cannot seem to see any evidence before the trial Court as contained in the record of appeal where the Respondent testified to the effect that the land is situate in Maiganga Coal Mine in Akko Local Government Area. This came up in the brief but not in evidence. It came up during the address of Counsel. The law as rightly stated by the Respondent’s Counsel is that address of Counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See Olagunju vs Adesoye & Anor (2009) 4-5 SC (pt III) 1; Andrew & Anor vs INEC (2017) 7 SC 90; Lawali vs State (2019) LPELR-46405 (SC).

The Appellant’s Counsel in challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court relied and referred to Section 19(3) of the Area Court Edict (now Law). It is not out of place to reproduce the said section, it provides as follows”
“Subject to the provision of any written law, all land causes shall be tried and determined by an area Court having the jurisdiction over the area in which the land, which is the subject matter of the dispute is situated and to the extent of the jurisdiction and power of such Court.” (underlined for emphasis)
The above provision is clear as to its meaning and purpose. Whichever rule of interpretation is used, the interpretation is the same. The location where the land is situated will determine the Court which has jurisdiction to try the case arising there from. The implication therefore is that only an Area Court situated in the Local Government Area where the land in dispute is located has jurisdiction to determine causes arising in respect to that land. To make it clearer and sound more specific, by the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Area Court Edict, it is the Area Court in Billiri that has the jurisdiction to handle cases involving land located within the Local Government. This means no other Area Court in any other Local Government Area can entertain land matter situated in Billiri Local Government Area. This position can only change if there is a written law to the contrary. I am not aware of any written law to the contrary and none of the Counsel drew my attention to any if there is.
The narrow area of law the provision in law refers to is the subject of territorial jurisdiction. This means a geographical area within which the Court has jurisdiction and beyond which it cannot exercise jurisdiction. See Golit vs IGP (2020) LPELR-50636 (SC); Audu vs A.P.C. (2019) 17 NWLR (pt 1702) 379; Mailatarki vs Tongo & Ors (2017) 5-6 SC (pt II) 132. Territorial jurisdiction is conferred by statute. See Belgore vs FRN (2021) 3 NWLR (pt 1764) 503.
Section 19 (3) being the statute creating the Area Courts has clearly stated the jurisdiction of the Area Court on land matters. I had stated the interpretation above.

Let me now relate the interpretation to the facts before the trial Court. The matter was filed and heard in the Kumo Area Court which as admitted by the parties is located in Akko Local Government Area. For the trial Court to have exercised jurisdiction properly, the land must therefore be located in Akko Local Government Area. The question therefore is where is the land located? The Respondent in the Respondent brief had said the land is located and situated around Maiganga coal mine in Akko Local Government Area. The Respondent referred to the pages 24 paragraphs 3 to pages 25 lines 1-7 of the Record of Appeal to buttress this point. I have looked at those pages and I cannot see any evidence to the effect that the land is situate at Maiganga Coal Mine in Akko Local Government Area. There is no evidence anywhere to show firstly that the land is situate in Maiganga coal mine, and secondly, that Maiganga Coal mine is in Akko Local Government Area. This does not seem to help the case of the Respondent on the subject of jurisdiction. This really does not seem good for the Respondent.

Let me now turn to the Appellant’s case. The Appellant’s brief as adopted by the Counsel to the Appellant is that the land is situated in Payi in the Billiri Local Government Area. Learned Counsel to the Respondent has argued that there is no evidence that the land is situated in Billiri Local Government Area. I do not agree with Counsel on this point. There is evidence that the farmland is located in Payi. This is clearly shown in Exhibit D which is a document the Respondent relied on. In the said document the farmland is situate in Payi. This is therefore not in dispute.

Documentary evidence is acceptable evidence and indeed sometimes referred to as the best evidence. See Hajia Bakari vs Deaconess Ogundipe & Ors (2020) LPELR-49571; Ibrahim vs Abdallah & Ors (2019) LPELR-48984.

It is not difficult for me in the light of Exhibit D that there is evidence that the land is situated in Payi.

The next question to be answered is, in what Local Government Area is Payi? In answer to this question, Exhibit NA1 comes readily applicable here. Exhibit NA1 shows that Payi is within Billiri Local Government Area. It is not even on the border. Akko Local Government Area is far away. It is therefore, clear that Payi where the land is located is not within the Akko Local Government Area. The implication is that, Kumo Area Court has no jurisdiction over the farmland in dispute which is in Billiri Local Government Area. The Court of first instance, that is the trial Court, Kumo Area Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the land case.

The effect of any Court entertaining a matter without jurisdiction is that all the proceedings and the decision reached therein amounts to a nullity. In Chief of Air Staff & Ors vs. Iyen (2005) 1 SC (pt. ii) 121, the Supreme Court held:
“A decision given by a Tribunal or Court without jurisdiction is a nullity. If the State High Court gives a decision on a case which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, that decision is null and void and cannot sustain a plea of res judicata. In the same vein, if a Magistrate tries and convicts a person for murder for which he lacks jurisdiction to try the person so convicted cannot successfully raise a plea of autrefois convict to prevent a subsequent trial before a Court vested with jurisdiction to try him”.
In Owner of the MV ‘Arabella vs. Nig. Agricultural Insurance Corporation NSCQR Vol. 34 2008, Ogbuagu, JSC, his lordship affirms the above position in these words:
“Judgment or order by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity. If a Court is shown to have no jurisdiction, the proceedings however well conducted, are a nullity.”
It is immaterial that it is the Appellant that instituted the action in the trial Court this is because jurisdiction is conferred by statute and cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of parties. See Bulus Golit vs IGP (2020) LPELR-50636; Dr J.O.J. Okezie vs Fed. Attorney General (1979) LPELR-2448 (SC); Okocha Osi vs Accord Party & Ors (2016) 12 SC (pt II) 121. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot be held to maneuver. The matter dies at that stage. That is why it is important that a Court determines the issue of jurisdiction first, once it is raised.
Once the Court has held that a Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the effect is to strike out the matter. The trial Court, that is the Kumo Area Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore all the proceedings and the decision amount to a nullity. Since the foundation is bad, everything built on it will collapse. The Holy Book, the Bible asked in Psalm 11:3 “if the foundation be destroyed what can the righteous do.” In legal parlance, it is clear that no one can put something on nothing and expect it to stand. This is a legal impossibility. See Macfoy vs UAC (1962) AC 152,160; Salati vs Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (pt 15) p 198.

In the light of the above, I resolve this first issue in favour of the Appellant.

Having so decided, it will not achieve any useful purpose to go further to consider the merit of the appeal. This will amount to an academic exercise. This is a Court of law and we are not allowed to engage in academic exercise.

The appropriate order to make is to strike out the suit to that extent all the subsequent proceeding in the Upper Area Court and the Gombe High Court cannot stand.

In the light of that, I do not think it is wise for me to consider the other issues so that I do not preempt subsequent action over the matter if the parties desire to do so.

The Appellant in the appeal has sought for three reliefs which are:
a. Allow the appeal
b. Set aside the judgment of the High Court sitting on appeal delivered on 11th December, 2019
c. Confer title on the Appellant

The ground upon which this appeal will be allowed and the judgment of the lower Court set aside is on the premise that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The only order the law permits me to make is to strike out the case and in so doing, I cannot look into the merit of the case to decide who owns the property. In Ehuwa vs Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2006) 11-12 SC 102, it was held:
“Where therefore a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a claim, the proper order such a Court should make is one striking out the matter. I therefore hold that the proper order which the lower Court and this Court should make in the appellant’s appeal is an order striking out the appeal.”

I do not think, this is an appropriate case to invoke the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act so that I do not preempt any subsequent action of the parties. In addressing the specific reliefs of the Appellant, I will say this appeal succeeds in part to the extent that the judgment of the lower Court is set aside, I however cannot confer title of the land on the Appellant.
Parties are to bear their respective cost in this appeal.

USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now, the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother EBIOWEI TOBI, JCA. I am in agreement with the issues considered and resolved by His Lordship. I have nothing more to add. I abide by the conclusions reached therein.

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.: Having read in advance, the lead judgment of my learned brother, EBIOWEI TOBI, JCA just delivered. With whose reasoning and conclusion I entirely agree and being unable to reasonably add to the exhaustive treatment of the issues therein made. I abide by the consequential orders made therein.

Appearances:

Ibrahim Ambore Nuhu, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Y. L. Yunusa, Esq. For Respondent(s)