- BABATUNDE OSIBOWALE OSINUBI v. QUANTITY SURVEYORS REGISTRATION BOARD OF NIGERIA & ANOR
(2018)LCN/11787(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 27th day of June, 2018
CA/A/87/2017
RATIO
PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES MUST BE AVOIDED
It is well settled that in drafting grounds of appeal and issues for determination counsel must at all times avoid proliferation of issues, and this happens when a multiplicity of issues are formulated from the same ground of appeal. per MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
WHAT IT MEANS WHEN SOMEONE SEEKS TO REGISTER
The reference to “persons seeking to become registered as Quantity Surveyors” in Section 1 (b) of the Act, clearly includes already registered Quantity Surveyors, contrary to the contention of learned counsel to the appellant, giving it any other interpretation will have done serious violence to the rest of the statute, whose intention is clearly to include persons interested in becoming members as well as persons who are already members; the main object of statutory interpretation after all is to discover the intention of the lawmaker, which is to be deduced from the language used. per MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The law, as firmly established by a long line of authorities, is that issues for determination must flow from the grounds of appeal. per ABDU ABOKI
JUSTICES
ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TANI YUSUF HASSAN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
- BABATUNDE OSIBOWALE OSINUBI Appellant(s)
AND
- QUANTITY SURVEYORS REGISTRATION BOARD OF NIGERIA
2. REGISTRAR, QUANTITY
SURVEYORS REGISTRATION
BOARD OF NIGERIA Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal is against the Judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja; Coram Hon. Justice Nnamdi O. Dimgba, delivered on 29th day of November, 2016 in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/409/2016.
The Appellant as the Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons on the 14th of June, 2016, seeking the determination of the following issues by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the 2nd Defendant is empowered by law to remove the name of any registered quantity surveyor, and in particular that of the Plaintiff, from the register of quantity surveyors, without:
i. the registered quantity surveyor being convicted by any Court or tribunal in Nigeria or elsewhere having power to award imprisonment for an offence (whether or not it is an offence punishable with imprisonment) and which in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee is incompatible with the status of a registered quantity surveyor; or
ii. the Disciplinary Committee being satisfied that the name of any person, and in particular that of the Plaintiff, has been fraudulently registered; or
iii. being ordered by the Disciplinary Committee to strike off the name of the affected registered quantity surveyor, and in particular that of the Plaintiff from the relevant part of the register;
2. Whether the 2nd Defendant is empowered by law to send any list of registered quantity survey or list of quantity surveying firms to any member of the public other than the list or register of quantity surveyors which shall be in two parts of which one shall be in respect of temporarily registered person and the other part in respect of fully registered person;
3. Whether the 1st Defendant, as a regulatory body for the quantity surveying profession, is empowered by law to organize any course for registered quantity surveyors;
4. Whether the 1st Defendant, as a regulatory body for the quantity surveying profession, is empowered by law to demand and collect any fee or any other monies from a registered quantity surveyor, other than the fees specified to be paid to the Board in respect of the entry of names on the register, as a requirement for not removing his name from the register; and
- Whether the purported removal of the name of the Plaintiff, by the 2nd Defendant, from the purported list of registered quantity surveyors is not a violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 (1) and (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution’) and a violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental right to work as guaranteed under Article XV of African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10 LFN 1990.
In the event that the above questions are answered in his favour, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs from the trial Court-
1. A declaration that the name of a registered quantity surveyor, and in particular that of the Plaintiff cannot be removed from the register without the Disciplinary Committee of the 1st Defendant ordering the 2nd Defendant to strike off the name of the affected registered quantity surveyor, and in particular that of the Plaintiff from the relevant part of the register;
2. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant is not empowered by law to send any list of registered quantity surveyors or list of quantity surveying firms to any member of the public other than the list or register of registered quantity surveyors which has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and should only be in two parts of which one shall be in respect of temporarily registered person and the other part in respect of fully registered persons;
3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant, as a regulatory body for the quantity surveying profession, is not empowered by law to organize any course for registered quantity surveyors;
4. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not empowered by law to collect any fee or any other monies, from registered quantity surveyors, other than that the fees specified to be paid to the Board in respect of the entry of names on the register;
5. A declaration that the removal of the Plaintiff from any list or register of registered quantity surveyors by the 2nd Defendant is unlawful, punitive, wicked, ultra vires his powers, a nullity, void and a violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights to fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36(1) and (12) of the 1999 Constitution and, also a violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental right to work as guaranteed under Article XV of African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, LFN 1990 and therefore illegal and unconstitutional;
6. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the 2nd Defendant to cause the lawful register of registered quantity surveyors, which includes the name of the Plaintiff as fully registered quantity surveyor with registration number QS 734 to be printed, published, and put on sale to members of the public as prescribed by the Act;
7. An Order of this Honourable Court prohibiting the 1st Defendant, as a regulatory body for the quantity surveying profession, from organizing any course for registered quantity surveyors;
8. An Order of this Honourable Court prohibiting the 1st Defendant from collecting any fee or any other monies, from registered quantity surveyors, other than that the fees specified to be paid to the Board in respect of the entry of names on the register;
9. And such order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
Pleadings were filed and exchanged, in a considered judgment; the trial Court answered the questions against the Plaintiff and thereafter dismissed the suit for lack of merit.
Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court dated 29th day of December, 2016; on a sole ground shorn of its particulars:-
GROUND ONE:
The learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he proceeded to resolve all the questions posed in the Originating Summons against the Plaintiff/Appellant without effectively and judiciously evaluating the submissions of the Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant on all the questions.
From the above ground, Lawrence Machie Esq., of counsel for the Appellant distilled five issues for the determination of this appeal in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on the 14th March, 2017; thus:-
1. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself in interpreting Section 1 (b) and 1 (d) of the Quantity Surveyors (Registration, Etc.) Act Cap Q1, LFN 2004 to include ‘requiring registered Quantity Surveyors to keep their knowledge up to date through Mandatory Continous Profession Development (MCPD) and keeping their registrations annually renewed in manners required by the Defendants/Respondents’.
2. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he held that ‘there is nothing in the act of the Defendants/Respondents that breached the Act when they sent only a list to the BPP containing only the names of those members who have fulfilled their MCPD requirements and kept their membership up to date, with a promise to send an updated list of those who take benefit of the window still left open for those deficient members who might be minded to do the needful so as to fall into the updated list’.
3. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself in interpreting Sections 7 and 9 of the Quantity Surveyors (Registration, Etc.) Act, Cap Q1 LFN 2004 when he held that `… having been registered, nothing preludes the Defendants/Respondent from organizing course or trainings which members have to undergo periodically in order to keep their knowledge up to date and tune with demands of a modern society.’
- Whether the learned trial judge failed to fully address question No. 2 especially on whether the 2nd Defendant/Respondent is empowered by law to send any list of quantity surveying firms to any member of the public other than the list or register of quantity surveyors which are in two parts of which one shall be in respect of temporarily registered persons and the other part in respect of fully registered persons.
5. Whether the learned trial judge failed to fully address question No. 4 especially on whether the 1st Defendant/Respondent, as a regulatory body for the quantity surveying profession, is empowered by law to demand and collect any fees or other monies from a registered quantity surveyor, other than the fees specified to be paid to the Board in respect of the entry of names on the register, as a requirement for not removing his name from the register.”
In response, J.O. Obule Esq., of counsel for the Respondents submitted two issues for the determination of this appeal in the Respondents’ Joint Brief filed on the 7th June 2017; thus:-
“1. Whether the Respondent is empowered by the quantity surveyors (Registration etc.) Act, Cap Q1, LFN 2004 to require registered quantity surveyors to keep their knowledge up to date through Mandatory Continuous Professional Development (MCPD) and to renew their registration annually by payment of Annual Practicing fees.
2. Whether the respondents were right at law to have forwarded only the list of quantity surveyors who have fulfilled their Mandatory Continuous Professional Development(MCPD) requirements and kept their membership up to date by payment of their annual practicing fee, to the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) (to enable it upload same on its website for easy verification in compliance with the Public Procurement Act), with a promise to send additional names of members who update their membership.”
Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed on the 19th day of June, 2017 but deemed properly filed on the 23rd day of January, 2018.
It is clear from the record of appeal, see page 79 to 81, that the appellant filed a sole ground of appeal, from which five issues are formulated for the determination of this Court; the respondents also formulated two issues of their own from the same ground.
This, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to proliferation of issues, which is frowned at by the Courts; See ODOFIN V. ONI (2001) 3 NWLR Pt.701 Pg. 488. It is well settled that in drafting grounds of appeal and issues for determination counsel must at all times avoid proliferation of issues, and this happens when a multiplicity of issues are formulated from the same ground of appeal; as was in this case, see AGBETOBA V. THE LAGOS STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL & ORS. (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.188) 664 and TRADE BANK PLC. V. YISI (NIG.) LTD. (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 960) P. 101.
Where two or more issues are formulated from one Ground of Appeal, all the issues so formulated are rendered incompetent as a consequence; YISI NIGERIA LIMITED VS. TRADE BANK PLC (2013) 219 LRCN (pt. 2) 157 @ 175 and NABOTH OKWUAGBALA & ORS VS. MARGARET IKWUEME & ORS. (2010) 12 SCNJ 3.
The rationale for these decisions by the Supreme Court is that, an issue may arise from one or more Grounds of Appeal but not a multiplicity of issues or more than one issue from the same Ground of Appeal, and where more than one issue is formulated from the same Ground of Appeal, both the issues so formulated and the Ground from which they were formulated shall be struck out.
Having reviewed this position of the law with respect to proliferation of issues from the sole Ground of Appeal, it is quite clear that issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 all formulated therefrom are liable to be struck off, and are hereby struck off. I deliberately allowed the sole ground to survive, because if it were struck out the whole appeal would have collapsed like a park of cards. So it is in the interest of justice that I now allowed the sole ground to support the surviving issue. This appeal will be determined on issue one only. It is hoped that counsel on both sides will learn from this experience.
Issue One:
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself in interpreting Section 1(b) and 1 (d) of the Quantity Surveyors (Registration, Etc.) Act Cap Q1, LFN 2004 to include ‘requiring registered Quantity Surveyors to keep their knowledge up to date through Mandatory Continuous Profession Development (MCPD) and keeping their registrations annually renewed in manners required by the Defendants/Respondents.
It is submitted for the appellant that Section 1 (b) of the Quantity Surveyors Act, 2004 has ‘persons seeking to become registered as quantity surveyors’ in mind and not registered quantity surveyors and that the trial Court misdirected itself when it interpreted both Section 1 (b) and (d) of the Act to include ‘requiring registered quantity surveyors to keep their knowledge up to date through mandatory continuous professional development and keeping their registrations annually renewed in manners required by the Defendants/Respondents’; learned counsel referred this Court to JEV & ANR V IYORTOM & ANR (2015) LPELR-24420-SC and ALHAJI IBRAHIM HASSAN DANKWAMBO V JAFAR ABUBAKAR & ORS (2015) LPELR-25716-SC.
That since the words used by the statute are precise and unambiguous, the trial Court should have expounded them in their natural and ordinary sense without importing anything else.
Learned counsel further submitted that the NIQS is a similar professional body to the NBA as found by the trial Court but the payment of annual fees is unknown to the Act, especially Section 8 (2) of LPA and unconstitutional by virtue of Section 59 (1) (b) of the constitution of 1999, as amended, which vests the power to increase or impose tax.
It is submitted for the respondent on this issue that Section 1 of the Quantity Surveyors Act, empowers the respondents to determine who qualifies for registration as a quantity surveyor, and to determine standard of knowledge and skill required of practitioners, as well as raise standards or review qualification for membership of the profession from time to time.
That Section 9(1) (a) enlarges the scope of the mandatory continuous professional development, to cover both persons seeking registration as well as already registered with the Board.
Learned counsel urged this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that payment of annual practicing fees is not peculiar to Quantity Surveyors Registration Board, as most bodies like NBA have similar practice, especially as the essence is to keep check on members of the association.
RESOLUTION:
This Court like the trial Court, fails to see how requiring members of an organization who willfully chose to join such association to undertake mandatory professional development, to keep their registration up to date, and renew their membership of such organization breaches Sections 1, 5 or 8 of the QS Act, 2004.
Section 1 deals with the determination of who is a quantity surveyor, standard of knowledge and skill to be attained by members seeking to be registered, raising those standards from time to time, establishment and maintenance of a register of persons entitled to practice as quantity surveyors, publication of list of members and regulation and controlling practice of the profession.
Learned counsel to the appellant argues that ‘person seeking to register as quantity surveyors’ in Section 1 (b) does not refer to registered quantity surveyors.
With respect to learned counsel this argument turns both logic and common sense on their respective heads, not least because even registered members can only remain members for as long as they adhere to the rules and regulations of the association they have willfully joined, including the payment of fees, as it is the case with other similar associations like the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Section 5 of the Act deals with the maintenance of a register to which all members who have undergone approved courses can be registered in as quantity surveyors for the purpose of practice in Nigeria, similar to the practice in legal education, where members who have qualified are called to the bar, and are enrolled as legal practitioners.
‘Persons seeking to become’, it should be noted is not restricted to persons who are interested to become, but also, even registered members, if they are interested in retaining their membership; and that being so, the trial Court did not misdirect itself, in the considered opinion of this Court, especially as its interpretation of the statute is clearly in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in SARAKI V FRN (2016) LPELR-40013-SC, which among other things held that the golden rule of interpretation where words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, is to give them their natural and ordinary meaning, unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the statute; IBRAHIM V. BARDE (1996) 9 NWLR (PT.474) 513: OJOKOLOBO V. ALAMU (1987) 3 NWLR (PT.61) 377 @ 402 F – H: ADISA V. OYINWOLA & ORS. (2000) 6 SC (PT.II) 47; UWAZURIKE & ORS. V. A.G. FEDERATION (2007) 2 SC 169; NIGERIAN ARMY V. AMINUN KANO (2010) 5 NWLR (PT.1188) 429.
The reference to “persons seeking to become registered as Quantity Surveyors” in Section 1 (b) of the Act, clearly includes already registered Quantity Surveyors, contrary to the contention of learned counsel to the appellant, giving it any other interpretation will have done serious violence to the rest of the statute, whose intention is clearly to include persons interested in becoming members as well as persons who are already members; the main object of statutory interpretation after all is to discover the intention of the lawmaker, which is to be deduced from the language used; see BUHARI V. YUSUF (2003) 14 NWLR (PT. 841) 446 at 535.
In the circumstances therefore, the use of the words ‘keeping their knowledge up to date through mandatory continuous professional development’, does not give the subsection of the law any meaning other than the one intended by the legislature.
The fundamental issue here is whether the respondents have the power or authority to take measures to set standards of knowledge and skill for their members; and Section 1 (d) clearly empowers them to regulate and control the practice of quantity survey in all ramifications in Nigeria, and that being so, this Court completely supports the view of the trial Court that the respondents are empowered by Section 1 (b) to determine the standards of knowledge and skill of their members.
A community reading of Section 1 (b) and (d) reinforces the belief that the respondents acted appropriately, especially when account is taken of the fact that the name of the appellant was not removed from the roll for failure to comply, indicating that no disciplinary action was taken against him, as alluded to, nor was he alleged to have been guilty of any professional misconduct.
This Court cannot help but agree with the trial Court, in the circumstances that, “…nothing precludes the defendants from organizing courses or trainings to keep their knowledge up to date and in tune with the demands of a modern society. Reading the Act in the restrictive way which the plaintiff has been urging the Court will do destructive damage.”; this is more so, in view of the trite position of the law that one of the vital canons of interpretation of statutes is that Courts should be minded to make broad interpretation, by being liberal; See: RABIU V. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 130 AT 151, 195. A purposefully holistic interpretation of statutes is often necessary so that the real intention of the legislature will be discovered; see ELABANJO & ANR V DAWODU (2006) LPELR-1106-SC.
It is for these reasons that I resolve this issue in favour of the respondents, against the appellant.
Having resolved the sole issue for determination in favour of the respondents, against the appellant, the appeal fails for lack of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Honourable Justice Nnamdi O. Dimgba of the 29th of November, 2016 is hereby affirmed.
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the thorough lead judgment of my Learned Brother MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, JCA. I agree with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusions, I intend to add a few words of my own, on the issue of proliferation.
This Court, and indeed the apex Court have constantly frowned at the unwholesome habit of Learned Counsel, in formulating more than one issue for determination, from a ground of appeal.
The law, as firmly established by a long line of authorities, is that issues for determination must flow from the grounds of appeal. An appellant is therefore not permitted to raise issues in excess of his grounds of appeal. Having five issues from one ground of appeal is totally not in line with the contemplation of the law relating to formulation of issues for determination in an appeal. It amounts to proliferation of issues which is not acceptable. The multiplicity of issues more than the sole ground of appeal is discountenanced. See BILLE v. STATE (2016) LPELR 40832 (SC); NWANKWO & ORS v. YAR’ADUA & ORS (2010) LPELR 2109 (SC).
That said, I am in firm agreement with the conclusions reached by my Learned Brother MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, JCA, in the lead judgment. I adjudge this appeal to be totally devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
I also abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgment.
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Mohammed Mustapha JCA, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.
Appearances:
Tola Olorunmi Esq. and L. Machie Esq.For Appellant(s)
I.A. Modibbo Esq.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Tola Olorunmi Esq. and L. Machie Esq.For Appellant
AND
I.A. Modibbo Esq.For Respondent
