REV. DAVID AMOS UDOUDOM & ORS v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF QUA IBOE CHURCH & ORS
(2011)LCN/4340(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011
CA/C/199/2009
RATIO
PLEADINGS: WHETHER THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE COURTS ARE BOUND BY THE CASE TO THE CASE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT
It is trite that the parties are bound by the case they present to the court and the issues raised thereby for trial. Similarly the court is bound to limit itself to the case presented to it for determination and the issues raised by the parties thereof. This is the law as established by the apex court in the case of AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LIMITED V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LIMITED (2007) 15 NWLR (pt. 1056) pg 118; 147-148.” PER JAFARU MIKA’ILU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JAFARU MIKA’ILU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ISIAHA OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. REV. DAVID AMOS UDOUDOM
2. ELDER NDUESO OROK
3. ELDER EYAEKOP UMANAH
4. ELDER ENOBONG AKPAN – Appellant(s)
AND
1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF QUA IBOE CHURCH
2. ELDER MICHEAL JOHN AKPAN
3. ELDER SAMPSON BROWN – Respondent(s)
JAFARU MIKA’ILU, J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants in this matter were the Defendants in Suit No FHC/UY/CS/78/05 which is still pending at the Federal High Court, Uyo Judicial Division. After instituting Suit No. FHC/UY/CS/78/05 at the Federal High court, Uyo the plaintiffs thereat filed a motion for interlocutory injunction in that court.
Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents informed the trial court of the pendency of a parallel suit at the Magistrate’s court. That the Magistrate’s Court suit was for the ejection of one Rev. (Dr) Abia F. Abia. a one time pastor in the Defendants/Appellants church who was transferred by the 1st Defendant/Appellant since 1st October, 2005 but he refused to move out of the church manse. Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants orally applied to the trial court for an order that the said Rev. Abia should not be ejected or evicted from the Defendants premises No. 2 Abak Road Uyo.
The trial court gave its ruling on the oral application of counsel on 22nd of July, 2009 granting interlocutory injunction in the following words:-
“The Defendants, their privies, agents, attorneys, workmen should not transfer, eject from the pastor’s house Dr. Abia Abia, the incumbent Chairman, congregational session/Resident pastor in charge of Uyo village branch at No. Abak Road, Uyo of the 1st plaintiff Association until the determination of the substantive suit.”
It is to be noted that the above order of the trial Judge did not flow from the prayers of the parties and was in excess of jurisdiction.
Therefore the appellant appeared to this court by filing notice and grounds of appeal on 30th July, 2009.
Thus going over the record of proceedings of the trial court and the argument of both counsel the following facts are clear:
1. Following the institution of the suit No. FHC/UY/78/2005 at the Federal High Court, Uyo Division on 24th October, 2005, the Respondents on record brought motion for interlocutory injunction on the same date and serves all the processes on the appellant on record. See pages 61-70 for the motion for interlocutory injunction and affidavit in support of the motion. See also pages 150-155 for further affidavit of the plaintiffs/ Respondent, The appellants on record filed counter affidavit. See pages 122-129 of the record. They also filed their statement of defence. See pages 203 following:-
2. To the motion for injunction, parties filed written addresses.
See pages 184-192 for the plaintiffs’ counsel address and pages 196-202 for the Defendants, counsel address on the injunction.
3. Suit No. FHC/UY/78/2005 came up for adoption of written submission on the 15th June, 2009, this was not done. The case was adjourned to 22nd, 23rd and 24th July, 2009 for hearing of the substantive suit and for ruling on the interlocutory injunction. See page 323 of the record.
4. When this case came up on 22nd July.2009, it became obvious that the ruling was not ready and so same was not delivered. The Plaintiffs/Respondents counsel informed the court of the pending of a parallel suit in the Magistrate court for the ejection of one Rev. (Dr) Abia F. Abia a one time Pastor of the Defendants/Respondents, Church at No. 2 Abak Road Uyo who had been transferred from the Church by the 1st Defendant/Respondent (National Chairman of Qua Iboe Church, Nigeria). The said Rev. (Dr) Abia F. Abia is actually not a party in suit No. FHC/UY/CS/78/2005. Rev. (Dr) Abia F. Abia had been the resident Pastor and chairman of the congregational session of the church at No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo before he was transferred and before the institution of suit No. FHC/UY/SC/78/2005 but he refused to pack out of the church premises where he lived before the institution of the said suit.
5. Aware that the ruling was not ready and was not delivered, and conscious of the fact that Rev. Abia F. Abia was still residing on the church premises, even though he had been transferred and other ministers posted to the church to take the administration of the church at various times, (see the counter-affidavit of the Respondent to motion opposing interlocutory injunction), counsel to the plaintiff protested against the said case at the Magistrate Court while the case at the Federal High Court was pending.
The Defendants’ counsel then made specific application namely, that the said Rev. Abia F. Abia should not be ejected or evicted from No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo while the case was pending. None of the counsel made any application outside that Rev. Abia F. be allowed to continue to stay and/or should not be ejected from the manse while the main case in the Federal High Court was pending.
6. The learned trial Judge carefully recorded parties through their counsel and thereafter gave his ruling. In the ruling, the learned trial Judge went outside the application of counsel and made an order beyond jurisdiction, restraining the ‘transfer’ of Dr. Abia F. Abia and holding that he was the incumbent chairman congregational session/Resident Pastor in charge of Uyo Branch (at No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo…..’ even after the said transfer had been done and concluded before the case was instituted and even after three other pastors had been posted to that church in succession within the four years of the transfer of the said Dr. Abia.
As in the appellant’s brief of argument the sole issue for determination in this appeal is whether the trial Judge acted properly by granting to the Respondents an order in excess of what parties asked for and conceded to on the face of specific application and/or written argument (even though the same was not part of the ruling in the proceedings of 22/7/09.
It is the contention of the appellants that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he pronounced, granting interlocutory injunction beyond the agreed prayers of the parties through their counsel in open court. Thus by the combined effect of the proceedings of 15th June, 2009 and that of 22nd July, 2009 the following facts are clear:-
(a) That the parties adopted their written argument on motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
(b) That suit No FHC/UY/CS/78/2005 was adjourned from 15th June, 2009 to 22nd, 23rd and 24th July, 2009 for hearing of substantive suit and for ruling on interlocutory injunction.
(c) That on 22no July, 2009, when this case came up for hearing and ruling, the ruling was not ready and same was not delivered.
(d) That the plaintiffs/Respondents solicitor had informed the court that there was a Parallel suit at the Magistrate Court for the ejection of the said Dr. Abia from the manse of No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo. The said Pending suit was a rent matter. See page 168 of the records.
(e) That the Defendants/Appellants’ solicitor had orally applied to the court or conceded for an order that the plaintiff should not be ejected or evicted by the defendants from No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo while the substantive case was pending.
(f) That the Plaintiffs/Respondents solicitor also applied to the court for an interim order to restrain the Defendants from proceedings with suit No. MCICS/26312006 Pending at the Magistrate Court 5, UYO which was for revetment of Pastor Rev. Abia F. Abia. See Pages 353-355 of the record of Proceedings.
Thus I have to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that apart from the ruling on interlocutory injunction and hearing on the substantive suit which the case was adjourned for nothing would have been done on the 22nd July, 2009 without the consent of parties in the proceedings. That since the ruling, as it were, was ready on that date and the case did not proceed to hearing, the court was left with no option than to consider only the application presented and canvassed by parties. The parties through their counsel rightly applied to the trial court for concessions as per (d), (e), and (f) above. It is the consideration of application of the parties through their solicitors only that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered in arriving at his ruling. The observation of the trial court on page 355 of the record of proceedings reads as follows:-
“There is an interlocutory application pending in this suit which was filed on 26/10/05 and the Defendants filed their reply of 24/6/07. I have gone through the said motion for interlocutory injunction. I have found that the acts of the Defendants if allowed unabated will render the outcome of my ruling nugatory”,
The above led the trial court into grave error of the law and dragged the trial court into a fit of confusion, especially as the observation/ruling aforesaid did not flow from the prayers of learned counsel for both parties. The trial court indicated that the Defendants solicitor applied to the court to order that the plaintiffs, employee should not be ejected or evicted by the Defendants from No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo. But there was nothing in the proceedings touching on ‘transfer’ of the incumbent chairman congregational session/Respondent Pastor in charge of Uyo village branch (at No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo) of the 1st plaintiff Association until the determination of the substantive suit’ as ordered by the trial Judge.
It is the submission of the appellant counsel that the latter order, touching on ‘transfer’ of the ‘incumbent chairman’… did not flow from any of the applications of the parties and so made in excess of jurisdiction.
It is trite that the parties are bound by the case they present to the court and the issues raised thereby for trial. Similarly the court is bound to limit itself to the case presented to it for determination and the issues raised by the parties thereof. This is the law as established by the apex court in the case of AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LIMITED V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LIMITED (2007) 15 NWLR (pt. 1056) pg 118; 147-148.
In our case the issue presented for consideration of the court on 22nd July, 2009 which issue the court was expected to consider was for a restraint on the Defendants from ejecting Rev. Abia F. Abia from the church manse at No. 2 Abak Road, Uyo and nothing more.
The orders of the trial court outside that applied by the parties therefore were orders granted in excess of jurisdiction.
It is clear that the trial court erred in law and thereby granted to the Respondent an order in excess of courts jurisdiction and prejudging the main case by way of interlocutory ruling. The appeal is allowed the order of interlocutory injunction granted in excess of the application of the parties is hereby set aside.
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA: I had a preview of the leading judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mika’ilu JCA and I agree with the conclusion that the appeal has merit and deserves to succeed. I also allow the appeal.
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU: My learned brother, Jafaru Mika’Ilu JCA, gave me the privilege of reading the draft of his lead judgment. I agree with his conclusion. I too allow the appeal.
Appearances
A. A. ASUQUO ESQ.For Appellant
AND
IDONGESIT UMOH, ESQFor Respondent
