LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

GOV OF ANAMBRA STATE & ANOR v. SEMGRAPHIC CO. LTD & ORS (2020)

GOV OF ANAMBRA STATE & ANOR v. SEMGRAPHIC CO. LTD & ORS

(2020)LCN/14299(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020

CA/AW/440/2007(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal

Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. GOVERNOR OF ANAMBRA STATE 2. ATT. GEN. OF ANAMBRA STATE APPELANT(S)

And

1. SEMGRAPHIC CO. LTD. 2. RAPHSON INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD 3. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANAMBRA STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THERE MUST BE COGENT REASONS FOR BRINGING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Motions should not be brought before Court for the sake of it, but there must exist a cogent reason/reasons why. In other words, the Courts frown at motions which smack of mischief and intellectual intransigence. To bring such application would in my humble view amount to an abuse of the hallowed process of this Court.
This kind of application, brought by the Applicant is misconceived, and consequently, I also dismiss same as lacking in merit. PER PEMU, J.C.A.

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the LeadingJudgment): The Appellants/Applicants brought this Application under Order 6 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court 2016 asking for

  1. Leave to correct the Record of Appeal at page 201 to reflect the actual proceedings of the trial Court on the 23rd of May, 2007.
  2. Leave for additional Record in respect of the proceedings at the said page of the Record of Appeal of 23/5/07.
  3. An order of this Court deeming the affidavit of fact deposed to by T. C. Ikena filed as supplementary record as properly filed and served. For such further orders as the Court my deem fit in the circumstance.
    There is a 28 paragraph affidavit in support of this application and 17 Grounds for the Application.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS:-
This Appeal emanated from a suit on a land dispute presided over by G. N. Mbanugo J, of the High Court of Anambra State Onitsha Division. The matter came up for mention as far back as the 15th of May, 2003. By their own admission the Appellants/Applicants were in Court on the 26/6/2003 when the case was adjourned for definite hearing to the 13th & 14th of October, 2003. On

1

that day A. O. Okeke represented the 2nd & 3rd defendants.

The Appellants/Applicants hinged their grounds for this application on their contention that the matter was adjourned severally with no hearing Notice served on the Appellants/Applicants (defendants) at the Court below. That on the 24th of May, 2004 hearing commenced in the absence of the 2nd & 3rd Defendants unit it was adjourned for Judgment on the 23rd of May, 2007.

The Applicants stated that on the said 23rd May, 2007, T. C. Ikena Esq appeared with U. I. Urobo Esq for the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
The Appellants/Applicants contended that before the trial Court read its Judgment, that the motion for extension of time and the statement of defense of the 2nd & 3rd defendants were in the Court’s file.

The Respondents on the other hand, (counsel for the 1st Respondent) submitted that the Appellants/Applicants deliberately failed to file their statement of defence and failed to take part in the trial.

​It is the version of counsel for the 1st Respondent that this appeal was filed as far back as 1994 in suit No. O/210/94 after the Appellants/Applicants were served

2

Pre-Action Notice in 1993. That the Applicants as well as the 2nd Respondent were served the writ of Summons and statement of claim. That A. O. Okeke Esq represented the Applicants and never filed any defence.

That on the 15th day of May, 2003 parties agreed to a de novo trial and the matter was adjourned to the 26th of June, 2003 for mention. A. O. Okeke Deputy Director Ministry of Justice appeared for the Appellant/Applicants; he referred to page 153 of the Record of Appeal.

Again on the said 26th of June, 2003, the same O. A. Okeke also appeared for the Appellants/Applicants, on that day the matter was adjourned to the 13th & 14 of October, 2003 in the presence of the said A. O. Okeke Esq for definite hearing.

​That on that day the Appellants/Applicants failed to come to Court and the plaintiff concluded its evidence. The matter was adjourned to 20th and 29th of July, 2004 for defence to open. On the said July, 20th, 2004 the 1st & 2nd defendants (Appellants herein) same were again represented by the same A.O. Okeke Esq (see pages 163 – 164 of the Record). On the said 20/7/04 it was Counsel for the 2nd Respondent who applied for

3

adjournment to open its defence. It is on Record that A. O. Okeke Esq never complained that the Applicant’s case file was missing. He never applied for extension of time to file a defence for the 1st & 2nd defendants (Applicants herein) whom he represented at the lower Court. The said A. O. Okeke also did not apply to cross examine PW1. It is the version of the 1st Respondent that on the 23/5/2007 the day of Judgment that no motion whatsoever was brought to the knowledge of the lower Court by T. C. Ikenna. That there was no service or proof of service of the said motion on the 1st Respondent.

I have painstakingly gone through the Motion filed on the 19th of February, 2018, the numerous affidavit in support and the affidavit in opposition. The written address in support of the motion, I have also read the Grounds for this application as well as the relevant pages of the Record of Appeal referred to by both Counsel.

​I will only focus on the motion filed on the 19/2/18 and no more. I have gone through page 201 of the Record of Appeal and see no reason or Justification why the Appellant/Applicant would want to “correct” the said

4

Record. I also see no reason whatsoever for additional Record in respect of proceedings at page 201 of the Records in respect of the proceedings of the 23/5/2007 which was the Judgment of the Court below.

There was nowhere on the Record to show that the said motion which suddenly surfaced on the day of Judgment on the 23/5/2007, several years after the commencement of the suit was served on anybody.

Considering the attitude of counsel who represented the Appellants/Applicants at the lower Court, this application is a gross abuse of Court process and most mischievously brought.

There was nothing on Record to show that the trial Judge or the Registrar was served with any affidavit impugning the Record of the trial Court. This Application is a very clear case of making a mockery and a caricature of proceedings at the trial Court. I see no reason or justification to grant this application which is in all ramification not capable of being granted. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother CHIOMA NWOSU-IHEME, (Ph. D) JCA.

5

I agree with her reasoning and conclusion.

Motions should not be brought before Court for the sake of it, but there must exist a cogent reason/reasons why. In other words, the Courts frown at motions which smack of mischief and intellectual intransigence.

To bring such application would in my humble view amount to an abuse of the hallowed process of this Court.
This kind of application, brought by the Applicant is misconceived, and consequently, I also dismiss same as lacking in merit.

BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.: I am privileged to have read a draft of the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother Nwosu-Iheme, J.C.A.

I agree with and adopt as mine the finding and conclusion by my learned brother in the said Ruling that this application lacks merit and I also dismiss same.

6

Appearances:

Sunday Okonkwo, Principal Senior Counsel, (Ministry of Justice) Anambra State For Appellant(s)

C. Ezike, Esq. For Respondent(s)