CORPORATE IDEAS SECURITIES LTD v. HON. MINISTER FCT & ORS
(2022)LCN/16304(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, September 19, 2022
CA/ABJ/CV/435/2021
Before Our Lordships:
Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Sybil Onyeji Nwaka Gbagi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
CORPORATE IDEAS SECURITIES LIMITED APPELANT(S)
And
1. HON. MINISTER FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3. GOZBUKS NIGERIA LIMITED 4. JACK INT’L COMPANY LTD 5. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION, F.C.T. RESPONDENT(S)
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal challenges the Ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, delivered on the 16th day of March, 2021 Coram A. A. I. Banjoko (J.) wherein the trial Court set aside its Judgment of 6th February, 2019 in Suit No. FCT/HC/0924/18 and ordered the joinder of the 3rd – 5th Respondents to the suit.
The Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court filed a suit against the 1st and 2nd Defendants now 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal seeking the following reliefs;
1. A declaration that it’s right of occupancy over plot 413 Cadastral Zone A09 Guzape District, Abuja, is valid and subsisting.
2. A declaration that the multifunctional purpose for which the statutory right of occupancy was granted is valid and subsisting.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from interfering with the Appellant’s right and title over the plot.
At the close of trial, final written addresses were filed and adopted by both Parties. On the 6th day of February, 2019, the trial Court delivered judgment granting all the reliefs sought by the Appellant. No appeal was filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
On the 16th of October, 2020, the 3rd – 5th Respondents filed a Motion on Notice at the trial Court seeking an order to set aside the judgment of the same trial Court on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and an order to join the 3rd – 5th Respondents in the said Suit.
Ruling on the Motion on Notice, the trial Court set aside its Judgment and ordered a joinder of the 3rd – 5th Respondents in the Suit.
Dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of four (4) Grounds on 31/03/2021. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 14/07/2021.
The appeal came up for hearing on 20/06/2022 wherein the Appellant and the 3rd – 4th Respondents adopted their various Briefs of Argument. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 18/03/2022 and filed on the same date was deemed duly filed on 20/06/2022 while the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ Brief of Argument dated 01/04/2022 and filed on 04/04/2022 was deemed duly filed on 20/06/2022. The 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents did not file any Brief of Argument.
From the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant distilled two (2) issues for determination in its Brief of Argument prepared by Hakeem Kareem, Esq. to wit;
1. Whether the proceedings in respect of motion on notice dated 19th October 2020 at the lower Court is not a nullity? (Ground 3).
2. Whether in view of the position of the extant law and the facts presented before it, the lower Court was right to set aside its judgment delivered on 6th February7 2019. (Grounds 1, 2 and 4).
The 3rd and 4th Respondents distilled four (4) issues for determination in their Brief of Argument prepared by Perpetual Aibangbee, Esq. to wit;
1. Whether the lower Court has the right to set aside its own judgment and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the parties sought to be joined was rightly joined as parties at the lower Court.
2. Whether the judgment of the lower Court would have been different had the Appellant not fraudulently excluded the parties sought to be joined.
3. Whether in view of the circumstances, the parties sought to be joined properly commenced the action to set aside the judgment.
4. Whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory7, Abuja can validly allocate lands within the FCT.
From the grounds of Appeal and the issues formulated for determination, the issues raised in this Appeal can be subsumed and determined under issue 2 raised by the Appellant to wit;
Whether in view of the position of the extant law and the facts presented before it, the lower Court was right to set aside its Judgment delivered on 6th February 2019. (Grounds 1, 2 and 4).
It is the submission of the Appellant that the trial Court acted without jurisdiction when it set aside its judgment and made the 3rd – 5th Respondents Parties in a Suit when judgment had been delivered. That being a final judgment on the merit of the case, the trial Court had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to revisit the suit which amounts to sitting on appeal over its own judgment. States that the grounds for which the trial Court set aside its own judgment is not a ground known to law because the law clearly stipulates that no proceeding shall be defeated or set aside by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. Cites the principle of expression unius est exclusion alterius, Order 13, Rule 18(1) of the High Court FCT Civil Procedure Rules, 2018, IYERE V. BENDEL FEED & FLOUR MILL LTD (2008) 7-12 SC 151, SANUSI V. AYOOLA (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264) 275, UKACHUKWU V. UBA (2005) 18 NWLR (PT. 956) 1, BELLO V. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1196) 342 and GREEN V. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 480. That the ground of unenforceability of the judgment as heavily relied upon by the trial Court in its Ruling was not raised by the 3rd – 5th Respondents in their Motion on Notice which is tantamount to making a case for one of the Parties. Further states that the issue of fraud was already raised and dismissed in the final judgment and that the statement of the trial Court that the circumstances to set aside a judgment is not close-ended is an attempt to expand the law in favour of the 3rd -4th Respondents which is ultravires. Relies on Order 21, Rule 12 of the High Court FCT, Civil Procedure Rules, 2018, OGBORU V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (NIGERIA) LTD (2005) 17 NWLR (PT. 985) 596 and IGWE V. KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 787) 435 and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the Ruling of the trial Court.
In response, the 3rd and 4th Respondents submit that the trial Court has the jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment if there is sufficient evidence that it is obtained by fraud and withholding of relevant facts. That the Appellant fraudulently excluded the 3rd – 5th Respondents from the Suit and misdirected the trial Court into holding that the land in dispute is for multifunctional purposes instead of recreational purpose. Relies on ADEYEMI-BERO V. LAGOS STATE DEV. PROPERTY CORP. & ANOR. (2012) LPELR – 201615 (SC), EDE V. MBA (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) 236 and BARRISTER ORKER JEV & ORS. V. IYORTYOM & ORS. (2015) NWLR (PT. 1483) 484
Further submits that the Ruling of the trial Court is correct because the 3rd – 5th Respondents are necessary Parties to the Suit and their interest will be irreparably prejudiced if they are not joined as Parties to the Suit. Cites PEENOK INVESTMENT LTD V. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL LTD (1982) 12 SC 1 and USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. BALOGUN (2006) 9 NWLR (PT. 984) 124. That the Court can only be functus officio where all the relevant facts material to the case are brought to the notice of the Court and the trial Court was right to have set aside the judgment upon the discovery of the actual status of the land. The 3rd – 5th Respondents urge the Court to dismiss the appeal with substantial cost.
The grouse of the Appellant in this appeal is the Ruling of the trial Court setting aside its own judgment which was delivered on the merits of the case before the trial Court. It is true that a Court has the jurisdiction to set aside its own judgment. The law remains unequivocal that a Court is allowed to set aside its own judgment under certain circumstances, these circumstances have been listed in several Court Rules and in a plethora of cases some of which have been cited by both Parties in this appeal.
The circumstances wherein a Court can set aside its own judgment are;
a. When judgment was obtained by fraud;
b. When the judgment is a nullity such as when the Court itself was not competent;
c. When the Court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties have consented to it;
d. Where the judgment was given without jurisdiction;
e. Where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or the judgment of the character of legitimate adjudication. See ALAO V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 672) 264, ENTERPRISE BANK LTD. V. AROSO (2015) 13 NWLR (PT. 1476) 322 and IGWE V. KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 787) 435.
In OGOLO V. OGOLO (2006) 5 NWLR (PT. 972) 163 it was decided that the judgment given at the end of a normal trial, after hearing evidence of both parties and submission of learned Counsel on the relevant issues of facts and law, is on the merit of the action and also a final judgment which the Court concerned is incapable of setting aside except for fundamental defects that go to the jurisdiction of the Court. Where the judgment is final and the Court that enters it has no jurisdiction to set same aside having thereby becomes funtus officio, the way to challenge it or remedy any defect therein is by appeal to a superior Court. See ALAPPA V. SANNI (1967) NMLR 397.
The 3rd – 5th Respondents in their application before the trial Court filed on 28/06/21 for the Court to set aside its own judgment prayed the Court for the following orders;
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the parties sought to be joined as defendants in this suit.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable granting (sic) leave to the parties sought to be joined, set aside the judgment of this Court in suit No. FCT/HC/0924/18 delivered on the 6th day of February, 2019 same haring (sic) been obtained, by fraud.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court declaring the judgment as null and void same having been obtained by deceit, fraud and intentional exclusion of necessary parties to the suit.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as damaged (sic) to the parties sought to be joined for the claimants fraud and gross abuse of the process of this Court. (See page 31 of the Record of Appeal).
However, the element of fraud was not established against the Appellant. The trial Court did not find the Appellant liable of fraud as alleged in the application for setting aside the judgment in its ruling to that effect. The trial Court found that:
“The turn of events weighs in favour of the Applicants but the ground of fraud for the purpose of setting aside of the judgment of the Court was rather disingenuous, which the allegation was not sufficiently demonstrated.” (See page 149 of the Record of Appeal).
The trial Court did not also find the Appellant liable for fraud raised against the Appellant in its final judgment which was being challenged. It held to that effect that:
“To that end, it was imperative in the prove of forgery for those parties to attend Court to testify, firstly denying that they authorized the allocation and then also by comparing their signatures on Record and stating on Record their Positive Assertion that their Signature was forged. This was not done.
One thing was clear however, and that is that there was no allegation that it was the Claimant or its agents who forged the document, and there was also no link, established proving the Acts of the Claimant to this Crime.
Therefore, the Court holds that the Defendants failed to prove the Act of Forgery.” (See pages 103-104 of the Record of Appeal).
The law on setting aside a judgment obtained by fraud is well settled. It is not in doubt and the elements of fraud to be proved to entitle an Applicant to succeed are clear and precise. The learned authors of Halsbury Laws of England 2nd Edition Vol. 22 page 790 set out the law in paragraph 1669 as follows:
“A judgment, which has been obtained by fraud either in the Court or of one or more of the parties, can be impeached by the means of an action which may be brought without leave and is analogous to the former Chancery suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud. In such an action, it is not sufficient merely to allege fraud without giving any particulars, and the fraud, must relate to matters which prima facie would be reason for setting the judgment aside if they were established by proof and not to matters which are merely collateral. The Court requires a strong case to be established before it will allow a judgment to be set aside on this ground, and, unless the fraud, alleged raised a reasonable prospect of success and was discovered since the judgment complained of, the action will, be stayed and dismissed as vexatious.” See also OLUFUNMISE V. FALANA (1990) LPELR -2616 (SC).
The 3rd – 5th Respondents alleged that the judgment was obtained by deceit, that the Appellant fraudulently and intentionally excluded them even though they were necessary Parties to the Suit.
However, no evidence was tendered to that effect to support their claim and prove deceit and fraudulent exclusion on the part of the Appellant. The law is abundantly clear that he who alleges must prove. The 3rd – 5th Respondents failed, refused and neglected to proffer evidence that the Appellant had knowledge of their interest in the land in dispute and deliberately/fraudulently excluded them from the Suit. The Appellant as Respondent in the Application of the Respondent as Applicant before the trial Court, in paragraph 16 of his Counter Affidavit stated as follows:
“16. I know that there is no complaint against the Applicants in the original Suit, as the Claimant was not aware of the purported interest of the Applicants. ’’(See page 63 of the Record of Appeal).
The evidence above was not discredited, challenged nor controverted by the Applicants and is therefore deemed admitted.
When the 3rd – 5th Respondents failed to establish the allegation of fraud against the Appellants, the trial Court ought to have thrown out the Application instead, the trial Court suo moto raised another issue which was not envisaged nor raised by the 3rd – 5th Respondents in their Application which has been reproduced above. This is the issue of the purpose for which the land was allocated and the enforceability of the judgment. The findings of the trial Court on this issue are at pages 148 and 149 of the Records and I crave indulgence to extensively reproduce anon;
“The Court is also informed by the 1st Applicant of an independent Search that was conducted following an encroachment by unknown persons and a Search Report was issued to them by the Department of Land Administration vide a Letter dated 6th of February 2020. In it, the Parties seeking to be joined were informed that the Claimant had been granted a Recreational (Open Space/ Green Area) in line with the Abuja Master Plan.
Now, this subsequent decision of the Honourable Minister runs contrary of the Judgment granted in favour of the Claimant. The Court in its Judgment, granted to the Claimant Title over Land for “Multifunctional Purpose” AND not “Recreational (Open Space/Green Area).”
By this subsequent act, after Judgment had been delivered, it becomes clear that the field of play had changed, with the tables turned. The Minister squared a round hole, thereby causing a collateral damage to a 3rd Party, who was never a Party to the Proceedings at the get go. The Victims of this damage are the Applicants who are now seeking to joined as Parties after Judgment had been delivered. The Court finds the Annexures attached to their Applicant as supportable facts, as they demonstrate a Competing Vesting Right and Interest as against the Claimant’s Vested Right and Interest…
As regards, the contention of the Claimant that the only recourse available to the Applicants was to go Appeal is untenable in view of these present Facts and Documentary Annexures attached to this Applicant, which cannot be ignored, as the Court must do justice and not occasion a miscarriage.
In conclusion, this Court will not make a Judgment that cannot be enforced. A judgment of a Court can only be respected when all. Necessary Parties are on board and when all Material and Credible Facts that would enable the Court to see a total picture of the Case, is presented. Therefore, the Judgment of this Court is set aside and an Order of Court is made granting Leave to the Applicant to be joined, as Defendants to this Action. All other Orders are refused including Order for Costs.”
The above finding is the crux of the Ruling of the trial Court. This ground even by a long stretch does not fall under the circumstances where a judgment can be set aside as stipulated by law. This is because non-joinder of Parties is not a ground for a Court to set aside its own Judgment. Order 13, Rule 18 (1) of the High Court FCT, Civil Procedure Rules, 2018 provides thus;
“18.(1) No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before him.”
In the case of GREEN V. GREEN (1987) LPELR – 1338 (SC), the Apex Court held declared thus;
“Now to the final and most relevant question – What happens where parties who should have been joined under Order IV Rule 5(1) above were not joined, and the case proceeded to judgment with the parties on record as the only parties? In other words, what is the legal effect of nonjoinder of parties?
Under R.S.C. (England, 1979) Order 15 r 6: 1 No cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or nonjoinder of any party; and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.
In other words, where there has been a non-joinder either by failure of the parties or an intervener to apply for such joinder or failure of the Court to join suo motu; this nonjoinder will not be taken as a ground for defeating the action. The above rule is thus designed, to save rather than destroy, to cure rather than to kill the action or suit. Failure to join a party will thus under this Order (R.S.C. Order 15 r. 6) not be fatal to the proceeding and the Court may determine the issues or questions so far as those issues or questions relate to and affect the rights and interests of the parties actually before the Court-in this case Chief Abusi Green and. Chief E. T. Dublin Green…” Per OPUTA, J.S.C.
The trial Court became functus officio having made pronouncements on the merit of the case and given judgment, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant the Application of the 3rd – 5th Respondents who had several other options of airing out their grievances such as filing a fresh Suit or filing an appeal as interested Parties. See BELLO V. INEC (2010) LPELR – 767 (SC).
The trial Court ought not to have granted the application by relying on the new facts that played out during the enforcement of the final judgment, the grant of the Application by the trial Court is akin to shifting the goal post after the match had commenced and even ended which is a miscarriage of justice. Facts that come into play after judgment has been delivered ought to be raised on appeal and not to open for re-litigation an already closed case.
The failure or refusal to enforce the judgment of the Court in the proper terms of the judgment as in the instant case is not a ground to set aside such a judgment. Court judgments and orders are not made for fancy or the fun of it, they must be obeyed. The Court must not ceded its authority simply because they are not obeyed, it behoves on the Court to protect its power and authority.
I find that the trial Court became functus officio upon delivering Judgment on the 6th of February, 2019 and has no jurisdiction to grant the Application to set aside the said judgment and join the Applicants in the Suit.
The sole issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents.
This appeal has merit and is hereby allowed. The Ruling of trial Court delivered on the 16th day of March, 2021 Coram A. A. I. Banjoko (J.) is hereby set aside. The Judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 6th of February, 2019 Coram A. A. I. Banjoko (J.) in Suit No. FCT/HC/0924/18 remains valid and subsisting.
The cost of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000) each is hereby awarded against the 3rd and 4th Respondents in favour of the Appellant.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma, JCA.
The consideration and determination of the issues is apt and convincing to me. I therefore agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at in the lead Judgment.
I too find merit in this appeal and allow it. The Ruling of the lower Court delivered on the 16th March, 2021 is hereby set aside. I therefore abide by the consequential orders in the lead Judgment including the order as to costs.
SYBIL NWAKA GBAGI, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment rendered by my learned brother Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma, JCA,
I agree with the resolution of the issue for determination of the appeal by his Lordship. I have nothing more to add to it.
I also abide by the order as to costs.
Appearances:
Hakeem Kareem, ESQ. with him, Ifunanya Oranuba, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
Onyinyechi Henry Nwosu, ESQ. with him, Perpetual Aibangbee, ESQ. for the 3rd and 4th Respondents. For Respondent(s)
