SAMUEL IORAER ORTOM v. EMMANUEL JIME & ORS
(2019)LCN/13713(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 26th day of July, 2019
CA/MK/EP/GOV/4/2019
RATIO
THE INHERENT POWERS OF COURTS
The purport of inherent powers of a Court had been elaborately dealt with in a number of decided cases. In the case of Erisi Vs Idika (1987) All NLR 529 at 546/547, the Supreme Court held, inter alia:
“The powers or inherent powers of the Court of law are powers which enable it to effectively exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it. It is clear from the wording in Section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution of 1979 (now 1999) that the exercise of judicial powers is intended to include all the powers and sanctions which a Court of law ought to exercise in order to do justice, and uphold its dignity. The inherent power of a Court is the power which is itself essential to the very existence of the Court as an institution charged with the dispensation of justice… Inherent powers of the Court give therefore those powers that are reasonable necessary for the administration of justice. It is doubtful if justice can be effectively administered in our Courts, if the Courts do not possess inherent powers to make consequential orders, directly or indirectly … promote the process of litigation and ensure proper administration of justice. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
THE INHERENT POWERS OF SUPERIOR COURTS
Thus, it is settled law that apart from the Rules of Court, a Court possesses inherent power and control over its proceedings and it has a duty to facilitate the hearing of a matter before it ? Jonason Triangles Ltd Vs Charles Moh & Partners Ltd (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt 789) 176. In this wise, it can postpone a hearing ? Usikaro Vs Itsekiri Communal Land Trustees (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 172) 150, Daughters of Divine Love Congregation Vs Ugwu (2016) LPELR 42124(CA), combine the hearing of applications ? United Agro Ventures Ltd Vs FCMB Plc (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt 517) 546, defer rulings on interlocutory applications ? Orji Vs Onyemere (2015) LPELR 25652(CA), make preservative orders ? Mardani (Nig) Ltd Vs Galadima (2015) LPELR 25762(CA), etc, if the justice of the case so demands. Therefore, ordinarily, the lower Court possessed the inherent jurisdiction to defer its Ruling on all interlocutory applications, inclusive of the application of the Appellant, to the stage of final judgment as it did, if in its view it was in the interest of justice of the case to do so. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTITUDE OF COURTS TOWARDS THEIR JURISDICTION
The age-long principle is that Courts guide their jurisdiction zealously and jealously and do not give up their jurisdiction except in the clearest of cases. Hence, the rule of jurisdiction is that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of the superior Court but that which specifically appears to be so ? Attorney General, Lagos State Vs Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 111) 614. Thus, anything that remotely suggests ouster of jurisdiction of a Court must be scrupulously examined and would not be construed, without any express provision, to extend beyond its ordinary meaning ? Military Governor of Ondo State Vs Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 82) 280, Nwosu Vs Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt 135) 688, Agwuna Vs Attorney General of the Federation (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt 396) 418 and Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd Vs Denap Ltd (2001) NWLR (Pt 746) 726. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUES: DUTY OF COURTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
It is also trite that in interpreting a statute, the duty of a Court is to discover the intention of the law maker and in so doing it must consider the words used in order to discover their ordinary meaning, and then give use their ordinary meaning as they relate to the subject matter ? Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs Worldgate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, Gbagbarigha Vs Toruemi (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1350) 289, Commissioner for Education, Imo State Vs Amadi (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt 1370) 133. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: IN INTERPRETING STATUTES, NOTHING IS TO BE ADDED OR TAKEN OUT
It is also elementary that in interpreting a statute, nothing is to be added to or taken from its provisions unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express ? Attorney General, Federation Vs Attorney General, Lagos State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt 1380) 249, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Bankole (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 337. And in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to adopt a liberal approach so as to preserve the intendment of the Constitution Rabiu Vs The State (1981) 2 NCLR 293, AbdulKarim Vs Incar (Nig) Ltd (1992) NWLR (Pt 251) 1, Marwa Vs Nyako (2012) LPELR 7837(SC). PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUES: THE COURT SHOULD LEAN TOWARDS A BROADER INTERPRETATION WHERE APPLICABLE
Constitution has used an expression in the wider or narrower sense, the Court should, whenever possible and in response to the demands of justice, lean to the broader interpretation Ehuwa Vs Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission (2007) All FWLR (Pt 351) 1415, Dapianlong Vs Dariye (No 2) (2007) All FWLR (Pt 373) 81. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
COURTS: DISCRETION: HOW THE COURTS SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION
Discretion is a very fluid situation and when a Court is invited to exercise its discretion one way or the other, the Court has to take cognizance of the very facts of the case before it. The Court?s discretion must be exercised so as to do what justice and fair play may require having regards to the facts and circumstances of each particular case ? Mamman Vs Salaudeen (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt 958) 478, First Fuels Ltd Vs NNPC (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt 1018) 276, Bello Vs Yakubu (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt 1106) 104, CFAO (Nig) Plc Vs Sanu (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt 1109) 1 and Alli Vs State (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt 1309) 589. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: WHAT IT MEANS
Accordingly, a hearing can only be said to be fair when, inter alia, all the parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refused or denied a hearing or is not given an opportunity to be heard, such hearing cannot qualify as a fair hearing under the audi alteram partem rule ? Otapo Vs Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt 58) 587, Gakus Vs Jos International Breweries Ltd (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 614, Olumesan Vs Ogundepo (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt 433) 628. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: THE RULE OF FAIR HEARING IS NOT A TECHNICAL DOCTRINE
The rule of fair hearing is, however, not a technical doctrine. It is one of substance and does not exist in absolute terms. The question whether a trial Court acted in breach of the right of fair hearing of a party depends upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and the test to be applied in each case is an objective one based on the impression of a reasonable and fair minded observer at the trial ? Action Congress of Nigeria Vs Lamido (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt 1303) 560 and Eastern Breweries Plc, Awo Omamma Vs Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt 1321) 488. PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
COURTS: POWERS OF COURTS: WHETHER COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO STRIKE OUT INAPPROPRIATE PARAGRAPHS OF A PLEADING
It is trite law that a trial Court has the power to strike out inappropriate paragraphs of a pleading at any stage of the proceeding and to expunge inadmissible evidence in the course of writing its judgment ? Abubakar Vs Joseph (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt 1104) 307, Obi Vs Nwagwu (2017) LPELR 43281(CA). PER HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TANI YUSUF HASSAN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SAMUEL IORAER ORTOM Appellant(s)
AND
1. EMMANUEL JIME
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) Respondent(s)
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision contained in the Ruling of the Governorship Election Tribunal of Benue State delivered in Petition No EPT/BN/GOV/01/2019 by the Chairman and Members of the Tribunal in respect of Motion No EPT/GOV/01/M9/2019 on the 8th of June, 2019.
The facts of this appeal are that the first and second Respondents commenced an action before the Governorship Election Tribunal of Benue State (hereinafter called the lower Court) challenging the return of the Appellant as the winner of the Governorship election that took place in Benue State on the 9th and 23rd of March, 2019. The third Respondent in this appeal was the first respondent to the petition before the lower Court, while the Appellant was the second respondent and the fourth Respondent herein was the third respondent. Upon being served with the petition, the Appellant filed a Reply to the Petition wherein it answered the allegations on the petition and he raised his own objection to votes cast in some polling units in the election. The first and second Respondents filed a Reply to the
1
Reply of the Appellant to the petition and which they accompanied with additional statement on oath for one of their listed witnesses and the statements on oath of four additional witnesses.
On receipt of the Reply of the first and second Respondents to his Reply to the Petition, the Appellant filed an application dated the 31st of May, 2019 on the 1st of June, 2019 praying the lower Court to strike out many of the paragraphs of the first and second Respondents? Reply to his Reply to the Petition and the additional witness statements on oath. The first and second Respondents opposed the application and filed a counter affidavit thereto. The parties exchanged written addresses on the application. The lower Court took arguments on the application on the 8th of June, 2019 and at the conclusion of which it stated that it considered it expedient to defer the Ruling on the application till the stage of final judgment and it thus deferred the Ruling.
?
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the deferment of the Ruling and he caused his Counsel to file a notice of appeal dated the 9th of June, 2019 and containing two grounds of appeal against it. In arguing
2
the appeal before this Court, Counsel to the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 19th of June, 2019 on the 21st of June, 2019. In response, Counsel to the first and second Respondents filed a brief of arguments dated the 27th of June, 2019 on the 26th of June, 2019 wherein they raised and argued a notice of preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal. Counsel to the Appellant filed a Reply brief of arguments dated the 28th of June, 2019 on the same day and wherein he replied to the preliminary objection of the first and second Respondents and he raised an objection to the competence of the brief of arguments of the first and second Respondents. Counsel to the Appellant also filed two lists of additional authorities on the 5th of July, 2019 and 16th of July, 2019. The third and fourth Respondents did not file any process on the appeal and their respective Counsel stated that they were not contesting the appeal. At the hearing of appeal, Counsel to the Appellant and Counsel to the first and second Respondents argued their respective objections and thereafter adopted their arguments on the substantive appeal.
?
This Court will commence its
3
deliberations in this appeal with the objection raised by Counsel to the Appellant to the competence of the brief of arguments of the first and second Respondents. The preliminary objection of the first and second Respondents to the competence of the appeal was raised and argued in the said brief of argumen
