TITUS MAIKANO v. TITUS MOHAMMADU GIZO (2019)

TITUS MAIKANO v. TITUS MOHAMMADU GIZO

(2019)LCN/13365(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Monday, the 27th day of May, 2019

CA/J/308/2018

RATIO

JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF A COURT LACKING JURISDICTION

When a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter, any judgment or order the Court gives in such a matter is null and void. See:JOSIAH CORNELIUS LTD. & ORS. V. EZENWA (1996) LPELR ? 1632 (SC); OSAFILE & ANOR V. ODI & ANOR. (1990) LPELR ? 2783 (SC). A judgment given without jurisdiction being a nullity is not alive and no appeal can lie on or be heard on it. P.D.P. V. OKOROCHA (2012) LPELR- 7832 (SC); ONYERO & ANOR. V. NWADIKE (2011) LPELR 8147 (SC).PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM 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

Between

TITUS MAIKANO Appellant(s)

AND

TITUS MOHAMMADU GIZO Respondent(s)

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal of Plateau State sitting at Jos (Coram: Hon. Justice J.A. Kyentu, Hon. Justice G.D. Gotep and Hon. Justice D.D. Gopep) delivered on 18th December, 2013, wherein the Court below allowed the Appeal of the Respondent and set aside the Judgment of the Trial Grade One Area Court Dengi in suit No: CV/325/2012 and consequently entered judgment in favour of the Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court.

The Respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Area Court and appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal of Plateau State sitting in Jos herein referred to as the Court below. The Court below on 18th December, 2013 held that it found merit in the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and entered judgment in favour of the then Appellant now Respondent.

The Appellant herein sought and obtain leave to appeal out of time and to also substitute Alh. Mohammadu Gizo deceased with his son Titus Mohammadu Gizo, the enrolled order of this Court is at pages 84 – 85 while the

Notice of Appeal is at pages 86 – 91 of the record of Appeal.

The suit which culminated to this appeal was commenced at the Grade One Area Court Dengi herein referred to as the Trial Area Court, on 5th June, 2012, wherein the Respondent as Plaintiff Claimed as follows:
“I have sued both (who are father and son) for having taken over my farmland. A farm I inherited from my father namely Sanda Usman who equally inherited same from his father (my grandfather) by name Usman Gizo. I want the Court to help me recover the farm. That is all.”

The Appellant who was the 2nd Defendant at the trial Court denied liability on 14th of June, 2012. He claimed that he along with his late father who was the 1st Defendant are the customary owners of the land in dispute having inherited it from their forbearers.

Thus, issues having been joined, the matter proceeded to hearing and the Trial Area Court at the end of hearing in its judgment dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff now Respondent. Dissatisfied the Appellant who was the Respondent at the Court below has brought this appeal which was heard on 2nd April, 2019 after the parties had filed their necessary

briefs and processes. The Appellant filed his Appellant?s brief on 27th August 2018 while the Respondent?s brief containing Preliminary Objection was filed on 21st January, 2019. Thereafter the Appellant filed his reply brief on 4th February, 2019. On 2nd April, 2019 when the appeal was heard, Mr. Z. M. Lashom appeared for the Appellant, while Mr. Godwin Haruna appeared for the Respondent.

In arguing the appeal, Mr. Lashom adopted the Appellants brief and reply brief in urging the Court to allow the appeal. In response, Mr. Haruna referred to and adopted the Respondent?s brief of argument. He withdrew the Respondents Preliminary Objection argued in his brief. He equally conceded to the Appellant?s argument on the issue of the Court below?s jurisdiction, and withdrew Respondent?s argument thereon. He however said he was relying on their argument on the other issues in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.

In the Appellants brief, Mr. Lashom submitted on behalf of the Appellant that from the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, 3 issues were distillable for determination. The issues are:

a. Whether the Court below has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appeal of the Respondent before it considering the grounds of Appeal as contained in the Notice of Appeal of the Respondent at the lower Court which did not raise question or questions of customary law so as to make the Appeal competent before the Court.
b. Whether the Court below was in error when it Suo Motu granted unsolicited customary relief to the Respondent.
c. Whether the lower Court was right and justified when it Suo-Motu re-evaluated the customary evidence adduced at the trial Court and consequently disturbed the findings of the Trial Court which was never raised nor canvassed by any of the parties at the Customary Court of Appeal.

For the Respondent, Mr. Haruna in the Respondent?s brief raised a lone issue for the determination of the appeal. The issue is:
Whether the lower Court was right, in the circumstances of this case, to have reversed the judgment of the trial Area Court in favour of the Respondent.

The Respondent had in his brief raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The crux of the objection contained at pages 1 – 7

of the Respondents brief of argument, is that by virtue of Section 245(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the entire Grounds of Appeal were incompetent. This objection was withdrawn by the Respondent at the hearing of the appeal which means he conceded that the grounds of appeal were competent.

Again the Appellant under his Issue No. 1, submitted that in the light of the clear, lucid and mandatory provisions of Section 282(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the notice of Appeal of the Respondent at the Court below, the Court below lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondent’s Appeal on an incompetent Notice of Appeal which grounds did not raise questions of customary law.

Mr. Haruna conceded to the arguments of the Appellant on issue of jurisdiction and withdrew the Respondent?s argument on the issue. This in effect echoes that the Court below had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondent?s herein appeal at the Court below on the basis that the Grounds of appeal did not raise questions of customary law. After this concession, the Respondent?s

counsel adopted his arguments on the other issues in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.

On this note, I hold that the judgment of the Court below which parties are ad idem was delivered without jurisdiction, cannot be entertained in any form as appeal by an appellate Court. No issue in the appeal lying thereof is worth consideration, all the judgment deserves is to be set aside and struck out as a nullity.

Accordingly, I hereby set aside the decision of the Customary Court of Appeal, Plateau State delivered on 18th December, 2013 in Appeal No. CCA/37A/2012; the same having been made without jurisdiction is hereby struck out.
I make no order as to costs.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA. His Lordship has ably considered and resolved the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide by the conclusion reached therein.

Counsel to the Respondent conceded the contention of the Appellant that the judgment of the lower Court was a nullity because the lower Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter that the Respondent presented before it. Jurisdiction is the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is the power of the Court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted Court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the power of Courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which Judges exercise their authority. The issue of jurisdiction is most

fundamental in the adjudication or determination of a cause or matter by Court. It is “the blood, life wire, bedrock and foundation of adjudication and without it the ‘labourers’ therein, that is both the litigants and counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand, labour in vain” – Attorney General of Lagos State Vs Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 111) 552. A Court with jurisdiction builds on a solid foundation because jurisdiction is the rock on which Court proceedings are based. But a Court that lacks jurisdiction and continues to hear a matter and determine judicial proceedings builds on quick sand and all proceedings and steps based on it will not stand.

?Therefore with the concession that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter present before it by the Respondent, there ended the matter. This Court must find that the judgment of the lower Court is a nullity and that the appeal succeeds. The judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal of Plateau State delivered on the 18th of December, 2013 in Appeal No CCA/37A/2012 must thus be set aside and I too hereby set it aside.

?TANI YUSUF HASSAN J.C.A.: I read in

draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA. I agree with the reason setting aside and striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction. I make no order as to costs.

Appearances:

Z.M. LASHOMFor Appellant(s)

GODWIN HARUNAFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

Z.M. LASHOMFor Appellant

AND

GODWIN HARUNAFor Respondent