OUR LINE V. S.C.C. NIG. LTD & ORS

OUR LINE V. S.C.C. NIG. LTD & ORS

(2009) LCN/3664(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Friday, July 17, 2009

Suite Number: SC. 216/2002


Case Number: SC. 216/2002

 

JUSTICES:

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

CHRISTOPHER MITCHEL CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMADU SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BETWEEN

APPELLANTS

OUR LINE LIMITED

AND

RESPONDENTS

1. S.C.C. NIGERIA LIMITED

2. IKECHUKWU UKANWOKE(BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, FRIDAY UKANWOKE)

3. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED

RATIO

GAZETTE: DEFINITION

A Gazette therefore serves as official communication of the Government. Of Nigeria or of any State thereof or of any Local Government. Per MOHAMMED JSC

GAZETTE AS A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

As documentary evidence, the contents of a Gazette, as stated in the law, is prima facie proof of any fact of a public nature, which the Gazette is intended to notify.  A notification of appointments and other communications of the Federal Government of Nigeria in the Official Gazette, is merely a fact presumed to be true unless disapproved by some evidence to the contrary.  Per MOHAMMED JSC.

WHICH PARTY MUST PROVE LACK OF JURISDICTION

Where a party raises issue of jurisdiction, the onus is on him to give prima facie evidence of such lack of jurisdiction. Per MOHAMMED JSC

 

(Delivered by MAHMUD MOHAMMED. JSC)

 

The Appellant in this appeal was the Plaintiff at the trial High Court of Justice Anambra State and was the 1st Respondent at the Court of Appeal Enugu Division. The 1st and 2nd Respondents in this Court were the Defendants at the trial High Court while at the Court of Appeal, they were the Appellants. The Third Party Universal Insurance Company which was joined in the action at the trial High Court was the 2nd Respondent at the Court of Appeal. The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Defendants at the trial Court who were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court against them jointly appealed against it to the Court of Appeal Enugu where in their Appellants brief of argument for the determination of their appeal, they raised 8 issues. The first of these issues being one on jurisdiction states

“Whether the trial Court had the Jurisdiction to conclude the trial at the High Court on 20th July, 1993 when the learned trial Judge was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court in June, 1993.”

 

In line with the requirements of the law, the Court of Appeal heard the parties on their respective briefs of argument and in a reserved judgment delivered on 8th February, 2001 allowed the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction alone holding that by his appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court on or about 3rd June, 1993, the learned trial Chief Judge had lost the jurisdiction to conclude the hearing of the case between the parties and the delivery of judgment on 20th July, 1993. The Court below therefore nullified the judgment of trial Court and remitted the case to the trial High Court for hearing de novo. With this conclusion, the Court below decided not to consider any of the remaining 7 issues canvassed before it by the parties. Thus, the Appellant which was the Plaintiff at the trial Court and the 1st Respondent at the Court below being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, has now appealed against it to this Court on two grounds of appeal filed on its behalf and from which one single issue for determination was raised namely-

 

“Whether the verdict of the lower Court is right in view of the relevant notification published in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 37 Vol. 80 of 4th March, 1993:”

 

For a better appreciation of this issue for determination canvassed in this appeal, it is appropriate to state the facts which are largely not in dispute between the parties.

 

The Appellant which was the Plaintiff at the trial Onitsha High Court of Anambra State instituted its action for damages in negligence in suit No. 0/239/89 on 24th August, 1989.

 

After the exchange of pleadings between the parties, the case proceeded to hearing before Iguh Chief Judge of Anambra State (as he then was) on 15th November, 1990. The case for the Plaintiff was closed on 8th December, 1992 while that of the Defendant was closed on 24th May, 1993 when further hearing in the matter was adjourned to 4th June, 1993 for the Third Party Defendant to open its case. Meanwhile before the adjourned date, On or before 3rd June, 1993, it was announced and published in various Newspapers, some parts of the Nigerian Weekly Law Report, Electronic and Print Media that the learned trial Chief Judge Iguh C.J. (as he then was) had been appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court J.S.C. and will be sworn in on a date to be announced in due course.

 

With this development, when the case came up on the adjourned date of 4th June, 1993, the learned Counsel to the Defendants now Respondents, raised the question of whether or not having regard to the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge, the case of the parties before him could still proceed. The learned trial Chief Judge replied in the affirmative explaining that his appointment to the Supreme Court was to take effect on a future date and therefore proceeded with the hearing of the case in which judgment was delivered on 20th July, 1993. It was this judgment that was set aside on appeal by the Court of Appeal for being a nullity having been given without jurisdiction on the part of the trial High Court.

 

The question for resolution therefore in this appeal is whether or not the Court below was right in its judgment now on appeal.

 

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has argued that on the authority of the decision of this Court in Apataku & Ors. v. Alabi (1985) 1 N.S.C.C. 294 at 296, the onus of proof of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court lies on the Defendants now Respondents who made the allegation and which onus according to the learned Senior Counsel was not discharged by the Respondents. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants relying on the case of Ogbunyinya & Ors. v. Okudo & Ors. (1979) All N. L. R. 105, pointed out that the effective date of the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court as duly published in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 37Vol. 80 Lagos of 4th March, 1993, was 13th September 1993; that according to the learned Senior Counsel, being the position, the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 20th July, 1993, was not affected by the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to Supreme Court which could have deprived the Court of its jurisdiction as alleged by the Respondents; that in this respect the Court below was wrong in its judgment declaring the judgment of the trial Court a nullity on account of it having been given in the absence of jurisdiction and therefore urged this Court to allow the appeal.

 

The position taken by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this appeal is contained in their brief of argument filed on 11th November, 2003. Learned Counsel observed that from the record of the trial Court, it is quite clear that the issue of the absence of jurisdiction of that Court was duly raised by the learned Counsel to the Defendants now Respondents in the Courts proceedings of 4th June, 1993 and duly considered and determined by the learned trial Chief Judge who held that he still had jurisdiction to conclude the trial; that from that part of the record of the trial Court, there is no dispute that the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court of Nigeria took place in June, 1993 before the judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 20th July, 1993, inspite of the fact that he was not sworn in until 13th September, 1993; that although the learned trial Chief Judge was sworn in on 13th September, 1993 as published in the Nigeria Weekly Report, the fact that the appointment was made in June 1993 is not also indispute; that the distinction between the date of appointment of a judicial officer and the date of his swearing in, had been clearly brought out by this Court in Ogbuinyinya v. Okudo (1979) 6 – 9 S.C. 32.

Learned Counsel urged this Court not to rely on the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 37 Volume 80 of 4th March, 1993 purportedly notifying the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in March, 1993 even before the said appointment was made, in view of the resultant absurdity on the face of the Gazette. Counsel therefore urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

 

For the thirty Party Respondent however, it was the contention of its learned Counsel that while agreeing on the position of the law regarding the onus on the person who alleges want of jurisdiction to prove the same as laid down by this Court in Apataku v. Alabi (supra) and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, that onus had been discharged by the Respondents having regard to the evidence on record including the admission of the learned trial Chief Judge (as he then was). Relying on Section 75 of the Evidence Act, learned Counsel observed that facts admitted need no further proof and that the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court having been admitted by him on record of the trial Court, need no further proof; that the admission of the appointment was made while the case of the parties was still pending before the trial Court was also quite obvious according to the learned Counsel who further stressed that the Court below was right in relying on further evidence on the appointment from the publications of the same in the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports; that on the. authority of same case of Ogbuinyinya v. Okudo (supra), learned Counsel argued that once a Judge had been appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, the Judge ceases to function as a Judge of the High Court irrespective of the date he will be sworn in. Learned Counsel to the thirty Party Respondent then called in aid the provisions of Sections 211(2) and 254(1) of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria to support his submission that the learned trial Chief Judge having lost the jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the case between the parties on his appointment, ought to have relinquished the case for hearing by another Judge in line with the case of Madukolu v. Nkendelim (1962) 2 All N .L.R. 581.

As for the reliance placed upon the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Official Gazette No. 37 Volume 80 of 4th March, 1993, which gave the effective date of appointment of Justice A. I. Iguh to the Supreme Court as 13th September, 1993, by the Appellant, learned Counsel submitted that the notification will not save the judgment delivered on 20th July, 1993, when it was already clear that Hon. Justice Iguh had been appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court; that the effective date of 13th September, 1993 given in the Official Gazette, was no more than the effective date the learned trial Chief Judge was sworn in to begin to discharge his functions in the new office as Justice of the Supreme Court because that act of swearing in, did not affect the fact that he had already been appointed a Justice of :he Supreme Court before the date the judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 20th July, 1993. Learned Counsel noted that the Official Gazette was not available to the trial Court or the Court of Appeal and as such this Court is entitle to look at it in resolving the issue for determination taking into consideration that notification of appointment in the Gazette is not conclusive proof that the appointment had been made if decision of this Court in Gbafe v. Gbafe (1996) 6 N.W.L.R (Pt. 455) 417 at 434 is applied and therefore the learned Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

 

As earlier identified in this judgment, the only issue for determination is whether the Court below was right in its decision that the trial Court had been deprived of its jurisdiction to conclude the hearing and determination of the Plaintiff/ Appellants claims before it by the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court. This calls into question of whether or not the trial High Court of Anambra State was competent to have delivered the judgment in the dispute between the parties on 20th July, 1993 inspite of the elevation of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court on or about 3rd June, 1993. The law is well settled on the effect of defect in the constitution of a Court on the proceedings of the Court. Any defect in the competence of a Court, renders the proceedings before it a nullity, a defect of competence being extrinsic to the adjudication. This position of the law was well articulated in the much quoted dictum of Bairamian, F. J. in Madukolu & Ors. v. Nkemdelim & Ors. (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 581; (1962) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 341 at pages 589 – 590 and 348 of the reports where the learned Judge observed –

 

‘A.Court is competent 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

 

  1. 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

 

 

 

  1. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided; the defect is extriasic to the adjudication.’

 

See also the case of Umenwuwaku v. Ezeana (1972) 5 S.C. 543.

The law is indeed well settled as agreed by the parties in this appeal in their respective briefs of argument that where the ground of appeal relied upon is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court, this can be raised at any time ,of the trial and even on appeal, but where a party raises issue of jurisdiction, the onus is on him to give prima facie evidence of such lack of jurisdiction. See Apataku & Ors. v. Alabi (1985) 1 N.S.C.C. 294. The question therefore is whether the Respondents in this appeal who were the Appellants at the Court below had discharged the burden placed on them by law in showing that the trial High Court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its judgment given on 20th July, 1993. The Court below indeed answered this question in the affirmative from the record of appeal placed before it. The proceedings of the trial Court of 4th June, 1993, is quite revealing in this respect. The relevant part of the proceeding of that day at pages 10 – 11 of the supplementary record reads:

 

‘Chief Njemanze – wonders whether the facts of the Ogbuinyinya case are relevant in this case or whether they are distinguishable from the facts of this case in view of my recent designation as a Supreme Court Justice.

 

Court – it seems to me that the facts in the Ogbuinyinya case are clearly distinguishable from the situation that has arisen in this case. The appointment of the Hon. Justice Nnaemeka-Agu to the Court of Appeal was with immediate in the Ogbuinyinya case as against the present situation which it is clearly decreed that my appointment will not take effect and shall only take effect on a future date to be published and on which date I would be sworn in.

In the circumstance and after due consultation with the Hon. C.J.N, it is clear that I remain in my current post In this  State pending further action. Unlike Ogbunyinya case, my appointment in issue is yet to take effect.’

 

From these proceedings of the trial Court of 4th June, 1993, it is not at all in doubt that by that date, the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge as a Justice of the Supreme Court, had already been communicated to him even though the effective date of the appointment on which date he would be sworn-in as a Justice of the Supreme Court was to be published in due course. Furthermore, this appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge was also published not only in the newspaper and electronic media but also in various Volumes of the Nigeria Weekly Law Reports beginning with (1993) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 288) of 7th June, 1993 where the appointment of four Justices to. the Supreme Court including the learned trial Chief Judge was published as follows-

 

“The following Justices have been elevated to the Supreme Court Bench –

 

  1. Hon. Justice Uthman Mohammed, JSC

 

  1. Hon. Justice Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC

 

  1. Hon. Justice Yekini Olayiwola Adio, JSC

 

  1. Hon. Justice Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh,JSC

 

Hon. Justices Mohammed, and Onu will be sworn-in on Thursday 3rd June, 1993 while Justices Adio and Iguh, will be sworn-in on a date to be announced later.’

 

The contents of this publication entirely agrees with the pronouncement of the learned trial Chief Judge in the proceedings of the trial Court of 4th June, 1993 on the position of his appointment to the Supreme Court. It is quite plain in my view that as at 4th June. 1993. the fact that the learned trial Chief Judge had been elevated to the Supreme Court resulting in the change in his designation to J . S. C as opposed to C. J. is not at all in doubt. That appointment was in fact made in accordance with the enabling powers conferred on the President under Section 211 (2) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which was then inforce as amended. In otherwords by the pronouncements of the learned trial Chief Judge in the proceedings of the trial Court of 4th June, 1993, contained in the supplementary records of this appeal at pages 10 – 11, the fact-of the elevation of the learned trial Chief Judge from the Bench of the Anambra State High Court to the Bench of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, is not at all indispute. The fact that the learned trial Chief Judge was required to be sworn in on a date to be announced later was only to comply with another requirements of the 1979 Constitution as amended in Section 254( 1) with states –

 

‘254(1) A person appointed to any judicial office shall not begin to perform the functions of office until he has taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegience and the Judicial Oath prescribed in the Sixth Schedule of this constitution.’

 

This of course means that the exercise of the act of the appointment itself is entirely different from the requirement of taking oath before assuming office or performing the functions of the office. It is for this reason that I find myself agreeing with the Court below in its judgment that the learned trial Chief Judge was already a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when he decided to proceed with the hearing of the Plaintiff/Appellants claims on 4th June, 1993, culminating in the delivery of judgment on 20th July, 1993. This is in line with the decision of this Court in Ogbuinyinya & Ors. vs. Obi Okudo & Ors. (1979) All N.L.R. 105 at 116 where Idigbe J.S.C. (of blessed memory) in the lead judgment, made very clear distinctions between the date of appointment and the date of swearing-in of judicial officers appointed under the relevant provisions of the applicable constitution where he said:

 

‘Section 128 of the Constitutionof the Federation No. 20 of 1963 as amended by Section l(c) of schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) (No.2) Decree No. 42 of 1976 makes it imperative that a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal shall not enter upon the duties of his office unless he has taken or subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and such Oath for the execution of the duties of his office as may be prescribed by Parhament. A close look at Section 128 of the Constitution (No. 20 of 1963) as amended by the Schedule to Decree No, 42 of 1976 shows clearly that the Section is intended to lay down a condition precedent to the functioning but NOT the appointment of Judge.

 

That Section impliedly recognizes the fact of appointment (already as a Judge) of the incumbent of that public office but makes the swearing of the prescribed oaths condition precedent to his functioning in that office.’

 

This interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 128 of the 1963 Constitution as amended which are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 254(1) of the 1979 constitution as amended, under which the learned trial Chief Judge was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme court on 13th September, 1993, after his appointment in June, 1993, is very relevant to the present case. In otherwords with the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge on or about. 3rd June, 1993 as a Justice of the Supreme court, he had ceased to be the Chief Judge of Anambra State by that appointment and therefore deprived of the jurisdiction to conclude the hearing and ultimate determination of the Plaintiff/ Appellants case before him as he did in the judgment of the trial Court of 20th July, 2001, which the Court below, rightly in my view, declared a nullity for having been given without jurisdiction.

 

I am however fully aware that the judgment of the Court below was arrived at in the absence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 37 Volume 80 published on 4th March, 1993, being relied upon by the Appellant in support of the issue for determination of this appeal. Although the official Gazette relied upon by the parties in this appeal in the sole issue argues in their respective briefs of argument was not tendered and received in evidence by this Court at the hearing of this appeal, the fact that the document was used in support of the fundamental issue of jurisdiction in this Court which can be raised even orally or suo-moto by the Court, I decided to look at the document in resolving the only issue raised and argued in this appeal. See Gaji v. paye (2003) 8 N.W.L.R. (pt. 823) 583 at 599 – 560; Obiakor v. The State (2002) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt. 776) .612 at 626; }ijebu Ode Local Government v. Adedeji Balogun and Co. (1991) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 166) 136 at 153; Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt. 84) 508; Osadebay v. A.G. Bendel State (1991) 1 N. W .L.R. (Pt. 169) 525; Okesuji v. Lawai (1991) 1 N. W .L. R. (Pt. 214) 126 and Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 166) 166 at 206. The next question therefore I am required to examine and determine is whether the surfacing of this Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 37 Volume 80 of 4th March, 1993, containing the publication of the appointment of Judicial Officers including the learned trial Chief Judge in the processes of the appeal in this Court, can have any effect on the judgment of the Court below.

Official Gazettes are a class of official documents which Section 113 (a) (i) of the Evidence Act CAP 112 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 made provision for as part of the provisions made for documentary evidence under the Act. The Section states –

 

‘113.     The following public documents may be proved as follows

 

(a) Acts of the National Assembly or laws of a State legislature, proclamations, treaties or other acts of State, Orders, notifications, nominations appointments and other official communications of the Government of Nigeria or of any State thereof or of any Local Government

 

(i) Which appears in the Federal Gazette or the Gazette of a State, by production of such Gazette, and shall be prima facie proof of any fact of a public nature which they were intended to notify:

 

(ii) ………………..

 

(iii)………………..

 

(iv)………………..”

 

 

A Gazette therefore serves as official communication of the Government. Of Nigeria or of any State thereof or of any Local Government. As documentary evidence, the contents of a Gazette, as stated in the law, is prima facie proof of any fact of a public nature, which the Gazette is intended to notify. The question is, what is the meaning of these latin words or expression? The term prima facie is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1189 to mean:

 

‘At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so for as it can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact. presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary’

 

By this definition then, a notification of appointments and other communications of the Federal Government of Nigeria in the Official Gazette, is merely a fact presumed to be true unless disapproved by some evidence to the contrary. In otherwords notice of appointments given or published in the Official Gazette, is not a conclusive proof that the appointments have been made on the effective dates given in the notice. This is because although the Official Gazette containing the notification for such appointments may be before the Court as documentary evidence under the Evidence Act, the weight to be attached to the contents of the document, is entirely another matter having regard to the requirement of the law that every piece of evidence placed before the Court, is subject to be tested for credibility, weight or cogency to determine its acceptability. In this respect, the weight to be attached to a document, like the Official Gazette in the present case, is a matter of inference to be drawn from established facts and in this regard both the trial Court and the Appellate Court are in the same position when the question involved, is the proper weight to be attached to the document. See Attorney General, Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels Limited (1989) 5 N. W .L.R. (Pt. 121) 255 at 282 – 283; Ayelli v. Dada (1978) 3 S.C. 35 at 61 and Akinola v. Oluwo (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 224; (1962) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 352.

 

On the evidential value of Government Notice Published in Gazette or notification of appointments, Idigbe JSC (of blessed memory) had this to say in the case of Ogbunyiya and Ors.v. Okudo (supra) at page 118

 

‘One of the cardinal rules of construction of written instruments is that the words of a written instrument must in general be taken in their ordinary sense notwithstanding the fact that any such construction may not appear to carry out the purpose which it might otherwise be supposed was intended by the maker or makers of the instrument. The rule is that in construing all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words should be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument; the instrument has to be construed according to its literal import unless again there is something else in the context which show  that such a course would tend to derogate from the exact meaning of the words.

 

On the above principles. on construction of written instruments, the content of Exhibit SC(1) can have no other meaning than that the appointment of Nnaemeka-Agu J. as a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal was intended to and did take effect from the 15th day of June, 1977. An express provision in an instrument excludes any stipulation which would otherwise be implied with regard to the same subject matter expressum facit cessare tacitum. In the circumstances, there is no room for the view, in the face of the express language (of xhibit SC. (l), that the appointment of Nnaemeka-Agu J. as a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal was intended to take effect at a date subsequent to the 15th June, 1977.”

 

In the instant case, applying the above rules of construction of written instruments to the Notice No. 149 published in the Official Gazette dated 4th March, 1993 notifying the general public the appointments of Judicial Officers, is it really the intention of the makers of that notice to include in that notice the notification of the appointments of judicial officers yet to be made by the appointing authorities? Certainly not. To construe that legal notice in its ordinary sense would definitely lead to some absurdity, repugnancy and inconsistency with the rest of the document especially the date of the Gazette being 4th March, 1993 notifying appointments yet to be made in June and September 1993.

 

In the case at hand, the appointment of the learned trial Chief Judge to the Supreme Court and the appointments of other Judicial Officers is contained in the Government Notice No. 149 in that Official Gazette No. 37 Volume 80 of 4th March, 1993, which reads

 

‘Government NOTICE No. 149

 

 

 

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES

 

The following judicial appointments which were made to the Supreme Court of

 

Nigeria, Court of Appeal, State High Courts and Sharia Court of Appeal respectively are notified for general information.

Name

Appointment

Effective Date

 

Justice Abubakar Bashir Wali

Kadi, Sharia Court of Appeal of Kano State

 

 

 

16-6-1970

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Shehu Usman Mohammed

 

 

 

Judge, High Court of North-Central State and North-Eastern State

 

 

 

15-1-1974

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Muhammadu Lawai Uwais

 

 

 

Judge, High Court of North-Central State and North-Eastern State

 

 

 

15-1-1974

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Abubakar Bashir Wali

 

 

 

Judge, High Court of Kano State

 

 

 

25-1-1975

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Muhammadu Lawai Uwais

 

 

 

Acting Chief Judge of High Court of Kaduna State

 

 

 

15-3-1976

 

 

PAGE| 19

Justice Shehu Usman Mohammed

 

Chief Judge of High Court of Kaduna State

 

1-1-1979

 

Justice Abubakar Bashir Wali

 

 

Justice Supreme Court

 

 

-8-1987

 

 

Justice Emmanuel Ogwuegbu

 

Justice, Court of Appeal

24-9- 1987

 

Justice Yekini Olayiwola Adio

 

Justice, Court of Appeal

 

2-3-1988

 

Justice Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh

 

Chief Judge of High Court of Anambra State

 

11-4-1991

 

Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi

 

Justice, Supreme Court

 

12-2- 1992

 

Justice Michael Ekundayo Ogundare

 

Justice, Supreme Court

 

12-2-1992

 

Justice Shehu Usman Mohammed

 

Justice, Supreme Court

 

21-4-1992

 

Justice Sylvester Umaru Onu

Justice, Supreme Court

Close Menu