EZE v. CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD
(2022)LCN/16509(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, June 30, 2022
CA/A/108/2017(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal
Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
MR. DOMINIC EZE APPELANT(S)
And
CITY CENTRAL GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE RATIONALE IN BEING FUNTUS OFFICIO IS THAT THE COURT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SIT ON APPEAL ON ITS OWN DECISIONS HAVING NO POWER TO DO SO
Given the position of things as one finds from the processes before the Court, this Court became functus officio of the matter between the Applicant and the Respondent when on September 27th 2021, it delivered its judgment which was final and not interlocutory. A Court is said to be functus officio in respect of a matter if the Court hasfulfilled or accomplished its function therein and lacks the potency to review, reopen or revisit the matter. Except for correction of any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. The rationale in being funtus officio is that this Court will not be allowed to sit on appeal on its own decisions having no power so to do. See the cases of NIGERIAN ARMY V. MAJOR JACOB IYELA 2008 LPELR-SC 159/2006, DINGYADI & ANOR. V. INEC & ORS 2011 10 NWLR PT. 1254 347,FBN PLC. V. TSA IND. LTD. 2010 15 NWLR PT. 1216 247, HDP V. OBI 2011 LPELR-9095 CA and INTERCONTRACTORS NIGERIA LTD. V. UAC OF NIGERIA LTD. 1988 1 NSCC 737. ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND THE GRANTING OF AN APPLICATION
The instant application is an unknown procedure and what it seeks cannot be granted in the face of the firm and settled principle of the law. There is nothing before this Court to evoke its jurisdiction and entertain this application or make any orders herein as such exercise will amount to nullity and sheer waste of judicious time and resources. The application cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court and the Court will not embarkon a fruitless exercise. As already stated, if the Court has no jurisdiction, needless to consider therefore whether or not it can make the order being sought.
In my view and humbly, I believe it is unnecessary to go into the merit of this application, to consider and determine the issues posed by both the Applicant and the Respondent, whether the Applicant can further appeal to the Supreme Court given Section 243 (4) of the 1999 Constitution and whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of his application, respectively. ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
THE COURT IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO AS IT HAS ACCOMPLISHED ITS FUNCTION REGARDING THE APPEAL BEFORE IT
The reason is not farfetched as aforesaid that the Court is functus officio as it has accomplished its functions regarding the appeal before it. This application is not one of the exceptions listed by the apex Court in the case of CITEC INT. ESTATE LTD. & ORS V. FRANCIS & ORS 2014 LPELR-SC 116/2011. See also the cases of ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. V. ADESANYA 1989 3 NWLR PT. 109 250, A.D.H. LTD. V. AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD. 2007 ALL FWLR PT. 392 1781 and IGWE V. KALU 2002 14 NWLR PT. 787 435. ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
THE COURT IS A COURT OF RECORD AND A COURT OF LAW
This Court is a Court of record and a Court of law. This is a Court of Appeal. Under the law, this Court is mandated solely to hear appeals from the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, High of the Federal Capital Territory etc. This Court cannot entertain an application that is not in line with the constitutional mandate of this Court under Sections 241, 242, 243 to 246 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
In the instant application, the applicants are applying after this Court had determined the appeal brought before this Court for this Court to award punitive costs and to enforce judgment of this Court. If there is the need to enforce any judgment, the appropriate Court to entertain that is the trial Court and not this Court. I sincerely believe as held in the lead ruling that this application is grossly incompetent. STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): By Motion on Notice filed February 2nd 2022 brought pursuant to Order 6 Rules 2 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the Applicant seeks in the main the following orders:
1. “An order of this honourable Court awarding a punitive cost of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only against the Respondent in favour of the Applicant for deliberately filing an application seeking leave to appeal a non-appealable matter and thereby wasting the judicious and judicial time of this Court and intentionally depriving the Applicant the fruits of his judgment and have for so long subjected him into financial crisis.
2. An order of this honourable Court specifically ordering the Deputy Chief Registrar of this Court to pay the Applicant the sum of N3,740,000.00 (Three Million Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira only) being part of this judgment sum deposited by (sic) Respondent into the interest yielding account of the Registrar.
3. An order of this honourable Court specifically ordering the trial National Industrial Court to calculate the salaries of the Applicant in arrears from June, 2013 to date in accordance with the tenor of the judgment which was upheld/confirmed by this Court on 27th September, 2021.
4. An order of this honourable Court specifically mandating the Deputy Chief Registrar of this Court, Abuja Division, the Chief Registrar of trial National Industrial Court and all other persons or authorities concern (sic) to discountenance the Notice of Appeal, Motion on Notice and all other processes filed or maybe filed in Supreme Court and enforce the judgment of this Court delivered on 27th September, 2021 as the Respondent is constitutionally barred to appeal to the Supreme Court in the instant case.
There are six (6) Grounds as contained on the Motion upon which this application was brought. In support the Applicant filed eleven (11) paragraph affidavit of even date, written address also of even date together with attached are Exhibit A, copy of the Notice of Appeal, Exhibit B, the judgment of this Court delivered on September 27th 2021.
In response the Respondent filed on April 4th 2022 a counter-affidavit of 14 paragraphs of same date together with the written address in compliance with the Rules of this Court also of same date.
The brief gist involved in this application is that the Applicant herein as an employee of the Respondent was accused and charged to Court upon the complaint of the Respondent sometime in 2013 along with another member of staff allegedly to have stolen 4.5 litres of the Company’s diesel. The Applicant was discharged and he tried to get back to work with the Respondent without success as his letters in that regard were ignored. He therefore instituted an action against the Respondent at the National Industrial Court for wrongful dismissal wherein judgment was delivered in his favour. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Respondent appealed to this Court. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court on September 27th 2021, the appeal was dismissed as without merit. Still being dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, the Respondent according to the processes before this Court in respect of the instant application of the Applicant, has filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of this Court delivered on September 27th 2021. The Applicant has now brought this application seeking afore-stated prayers from this Court.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
The Applicant submitted a sole issue as follows:
“Whether the judgment of the learned jurists delivered on 27th September, 2021 can in any scintilla of imagination of the Applicant/Respondent be further appealed to Supreme Court taking into cognizance the provision of Section 243 (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
The learned Applicants Counsel, Mr. Ayinmode Esq. submitted that the provision of Section 243 (4) of the 1999 Constitution is clear and not in any way ambiguous and that the provision distinguishes from the general right of appeal on matters from the Court of Appeal as opposed to the wrong argument by the Respondent. He cited in support the case of COCA-COLA NIG. LTD V. AKINSANYA 2017 17 NWLR PT. 1593 P. 125. That the said Section of the Constitution is not offensive for that reason or an aberration of the basic constitutional structure and cited in support the case of A-G CROSS RIVER V. F.R.N. 2019 10 NWLR PT. 1681 P. 479.
In conclusion, he submitted that the Respondent’s appeal is an abuse of the process of the Court and urged that the instant application be struck out.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
A sole issue was equally submitted on behalf of the Respondent as follows:
“Whether in the circumstance of this case, the Applicant is entitled to the grant of the prayers as contained in the application before this Honourable Court.”
The learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Ifeanyi M. Nrialike Esq. submitted that the Respondent’s matter is before the apex Court and therefore the Applicant’s application for the Respondent to be punished should not be granted as it is misplaced. That Section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution allows appeals from the Court of Appeal to the apex Court therefore the Respondent was well within its rights. Further that, an application of this nature should properly go before the apex Court and not this Court.
In conclusion, he urged that this application be refused with cost against the Applicant as this Court is functus officio.
RESOLUTION
As earlier stated, the Applicant has brought this application against the Respondent as a punitive measure against it for seeking leave to appeal the judgment of this Court delivered on September 27th 2021 which according to the Applicant non-appealable being a judgment in respect of a civil matter from the National Industrial Court by virtue of Section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. And for depriving the Applicant the fruit of his judgment, that he should be punished as stated therein.
I have stated earlier that the judgment of the Court below on the matter between both parties was delivered on September 27th 2021. Before this Court, are the processes in respect of the instant application and the Exhibits filed by both parties for and against the application. The application for leave to appeal by the Respondent is not before this Court as stated even by the Applicant as it was withdrawn and only the application which is before the apex Court subsists.
Given the position of things as one finds from the processes before the Court, this Court became functus officio of the matter between the Applicant and the Respondent when on September 27th 2021, it delivered its judgment which was final and not interlocutory. A Court is said to be functus officio in respect of a matter if the Court hasfulfilled or accomplished its function therein and lacks the potency to review, reopen or revisit the matter. Except for correction of any clerical mistake or some error arising from any accidental slip or omission or to vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention. The rationale in being funtus officio is that this Court will not be allowed to sit on appeal on its own decisions having no power so to do. See the cases of NIGERIAN ARMY V. MAJOR JACOB IYELA 2008 LPELR-SC 159/2006, DINGYADI & ANOR. V. INEC & ORS 2011 10 NWLR PT. 1254 347,FBN PLC. V. TSA IND. LTD. 2010 15 NWLR PT. 1216 247, HDP V. OBI 2011 LPELR-9095 CA and INTERCONTRACTORS NIGERIA LTD. V. UAC OF NIGERIA LTD. 1988 1 NSCC 737.
The instant application is an unknown procedure and what it seeks cannot be granted in the face of the firm and settled principle of the law. There is nothing before this Court to evoke its jurisdiction and entertain this application or make any orders herein as such exercise will amount to nullity and sheer waste of judicious time and resources. The application cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court and the Court will not embark on a fruitless exercise. As already stated, if the Court has no jurisdiction, needless to consider therefore whether or not it can make the order being sought.
In my view and humbly, I believe it is unnecessary to go into the merit of this application, to consider and determine the issues posed by both the Applicant and the Respondent, whether the Applicant can further appeal to the Supreme Court given Section 243 (4) of the 1999 Constitution and whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of his application, respectively. The reason is not farfetched as aforesaid that the Court is functus officio as it has accomplished its functions regarding the appeal before it. This application is not one of the exceptions listed by the apex Court in the case of CITEC INT. ESTATE LTD. & ORS V. FRANCIS & ORS 2014 LPELR-SC 116/2011. See also the cases of ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. V. ADESANYA 1989 3 NWLR PT. 109 250, A.D.H. LTD. V. AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD. 2007 ALL FWLR PT. 392 1781 and IGWE V. KALU 2002 14 NWLR PT. 787 435.
In the light of the foregoing, this application cannot be granted it is incompetent and accordingly is hereby struck out.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft, the ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu, JCA.
I am completely in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion that the application is incompetent and ought to be struck out.
This Court is a Court of record and a Court of law. This is a Court of Appeal. Under the law, this Court is mandated solely to hear appeals from the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, High of the Federal Capital Territory etc. This Court cannot entertain an application that is not in line with the constitutional mandate of this Court under Sections 241, 242, 243 to 246 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
In the instant application, the applicants are applying after this Court had determined the appeal brought before this Court for this Court to award punitive costs and to enforce judgment of this Court. If there is the need to enforce any judgment, the appropriate Court to entertain that is the trial Court and not this Court. I sincerely believe as held in the lead ruling that this application is grossly incompetent.
I also do strike it out as ordered in the lead ruling.
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I have been afforded in advance a copy of the lead ruling just delivered by lord, Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu JCA. I have taken time to read through the Record of Appeal, and I have also reviewed the submissions made in the appellate briefs and the issues canvassed therein. I agree completely with the consideration, reasoning and resolution of the issues in the lead ruling, which I hereby adopt as mine. In the light of the foregoing. I too hereby strike out the application for being incompetent. I shall abide by the consequential order made in the lead ruling, including the order as to no cost.
Appearances:
Mr. E. C. Ezegamja. For Appellant(s)
Mr. F. I. Nnaba. For Respondent(s)