MICHAEL UMOREN v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FULL GOSPEL ASSEMBLY OF NIGERIA
(2019)LCN/13683(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 23rd day of July, 2019
CA/C/196/2018
RATIO
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE
It evinces a jurisdictional question. The law mandates the Courts to accord prime attention to issue of jurisdiction first where it germinates from any proceedings, see Oku v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (P. 1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Ngere v. Okuruket ?xiv? (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440. I will pay total obedience to this legal commandment so as not to insult the law. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: DEFINITION
Jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajomale v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Unltd v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IM SLR 300; Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Society Bic S.A. v. Charzin Ind. Ltd. (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1398) 497; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; A.?G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
A Court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: 1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction?, see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Dairo v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar? Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387. These three ingredients must co-exist in order to vest jurisdiction in a Court. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
STATUTE BAR: WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED
Thus, a cause of action is statute-barred when no proceedings can be brought to enforce it because the period laid down by the limitation law has expired by passage of time, see Egbe v. Adefarasin (No. 2) (supra); Nasir v. C.S.C., Kano State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253; Cotecna Int? Ltd. v. Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 346. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
LIMITATION LAWS: PURPOSE
The raison detre for limitation law are to ginger up aggrieved persons to be vigilant, to discourage cruel actions and to preserve the evidence by which a defendant will defend the action, see Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572; Olagunju v. PHCN Plc. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 113; Lafia L.G. v. Gov., Nasarawa State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 943; Sulgrave Holdings Inc. v. FGN (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 309. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
STATUTE BAR: HOW TO DETERMINE IF A MATTER IS STATUTE BAR
If the date of filing in the matter is beyond the period allocated by the limitation law, then it is statute-barred. Conversely, if the time limit comes within that permitted by that law, then it is not statute-barred, see Woherem v. Emereuwa (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 398; Aremo II v. Adekanye (supra); Elabanjo v. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76; Williams v. Williams (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095); Hassan v. Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 574. PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHEN A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
Where a Court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceedings emanating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be marooned in the vortex of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Isah v. INEC (supra). PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MICHAEL UMOREN
(Alias Hezekiah Umoren) – Appellant(s)
AND
REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FULL
GOSPEL ASSEMBLY OF NIGERIA – Respondent(s)
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is an offspring of the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, holden at Uyo (hereinafter addressed as ?the lower Court?), coram judice: Okon A. Okon, J., in Suit No. HU/310/2008, delivered on 9th October, 2017. Before the lower Court, the appellant and the respondent were the defendant and the plaintiff respectively.
The facts of the case, which transformed into the appeal, are amenable to brevity and simplicity. The land in dispute is situate, lying and being at No. 328 Oron Road, Itiam, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The respondent purchased the land in dispute in 1976 from one late Edet Etim Udo and built a church thereon in 1995. The appellant was an employee pastor of the respondent who was posted to the church to manage it. The appellant showed acts of insubordination and unruly conducts when he refused to go on transfer to other places he was posted to. The respondent suspended and, later on, excommunicated him in 2007. While under suspension, the appellant broke into the church, sometime in 2006, destroyed and carted away
1
valuable properties of the church, defiled it and rented it out to Hausa merchants. The appellant refused to abide by or comply with the terms of settlement of the parties. Sequel to these, the respondent beseeched the lower Court, via a writ of summons, filed on 8th July, 2008, and tabled against the appellant the following reliefs:
(a) That the (Plaintiff) and not the Defendant is entitled to ownership and right of occupancy of the property lying, being and situate at No. 328 Oron Road, Itiam, Uyo as well as the Church building thereat.
(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further act of trespass on the said N328 Oron Road, Itiam, Uyo.
(c) N5,000,000.00 damages for the continuous act of tress of the Defendant on No. 328 Oron Road, Itiam, Uyo.
In reaction, the appellant joined issue with the respondent and denied liability. The appellant asserted that he purchased the land in dispute and allowed respondent to build a temporary place of worship thereon. Consequently, the appellant counter-claimed against the respondent and solicited the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the Defendant and not the
2
Plaintiff is entitled to the right of occupancy of the property formerly known as No. 328 Oron Road, Uyo but now No. 1 Osongama Road, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.
(b) The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira only) from the Plaintiff as damages for trespass against the Defendant?s property and breach of the Defendant?s fundamental rights instigated by the Plaintiff?s malicious and frivolous petitions to the police and incessant arrest and detention.
Following the rival claims, the lower Court had a full-scale determination of the case. In proof of the case, the respondent fielded one witness, PW1. In disproof of the case, the appellant called three witnesses, DW1?DW3. The parties tendered tons of documentary evidence: exhibits 1-13. At the closure of evidence, the parties, through counsel, addressed the lower Court. In a considered judgment, delivered on 9th October, 2017, found at pages 270?288 of the record, the lower Court granted the respondent?s claim and dismissed the appellant?s counter-claim.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision. Hence, on 12th
3
October, 2017, he lodged a 2-ground of notice of appeal which is copied at pages 291 and 292. Subsequently, the appellant, with the leave of Court, filed an amended notice on 19th September, 2018 and deemed properly filed on 19th September, 2018, which hosts 7 grounds, and prayed the Court for:
a) An order setting aside the judgment of the lower Court, and
b) An order dismissing the respondent?s claims and allowing the appellant?s counter-claim in this suit.
Thereafter, the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument in line with the procedure governing the hearing of civil appeals. The appeal was heard on 15th May, 2019.
During its hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, Essien H. Andrew, Esq., adopted the appellant?s brief of argument, filed on 19th September, 2018 and deemed properly filed on 7th March, 2019, and the appellant?s reply brief, filed on 5th April, 2019, as representing his arguments for the appeal. He urged the Court to allow it. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent, A. A. Asuquo, Esq., adopted the respondent?s brief of argument, filed on 20th
4
March, 2019, as forming his reactions against the appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss it.
In the appellant?s brief of argument, learned counsel distilled two issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to hold that the respondent had proved its title to the land in dispute based on an unsigned document of title, acts of ownership and long possession.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right on the preponderance of evidence to dismiss the appellant?s counter-claim in this suit.
In the respondent?s brief of argument, learned counsel crafted three issues for determination viz:
(i) Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in holding that the counter claim of the Appellant was caught by statute of limitation and so dismissed the counter claim of the Appellant.
(ii) Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in entering judgment for the Respondent as per her claim before the lower Court.
(iii) Whether the Appellant proved his counter claim at the trial Court.
A close look at the two sets of issues shows that they are identical in substance. In fact, the
5
respondent?s issues can be, conveniently, subsumed under the appellant?s. On account of the sameness, I will decide the appeal on the issues formulated by the appellant: the undoubted owner of the appeal.
Arguments on the issues:
Issue one.
Learned counsel for the appellant enumerated what a document must possess in order to qualify as a title document as listed in Ayanwale v. Odusami (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 610) 1246. He submitted that the respondent?s document of title, exhibit 2, made in 1976, was not signed on its behalf by the appellant who joined the church in 1980. He described it as not genuine. He said that the appellant denied signing it. He noted that it was not signed, stamped and registered. He took the view that even as a receipt, the exhibit 2 ought to be signed. He added that an unsigned document had the no probative value. He relied on Omega Bank Plc. v. O.B.C. Ltd (2005) FWLR (Pt. 249) 1964; Ojo v. Adejobi (1978) LPELR ? 2381 (SC).
?
Learned counsel posited that the vendor in exhibit 2 had no authority to make it and was not the owner of the land as the source
6
of his title was not proved. He cited Bello v. Sanda (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 636) 462; Nwadiogbu v. Nnadozie (2001) FWLR (Pt. 61) 1625; Lawson v. Ajibulu (1997) 6 SCNJI. He described the evidence of PW1 on inheritance of the property as non-issue because it was not pleaded. He referred to Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 409) 405. He further submitted that since exhibit 2 was invalid, the lower Court was wrong to hold that exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 8a, tendered to prove acts of ownership and possession, established title to the land. He relied on Oyekan v. Oyewale (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1991; Ajikanle v. Yusuf (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 475) 1712; Lawal v. Olufowobi (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 477) 177; Bello v. Sanda (supra).
For the respondent, learned counsel submitted that exhibit 2 was pleaded and
