Archbishop Peter Yariyok Jatau V. Alhaji Mansur Ahmed & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. KALGO, J.S.C.

The appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court of Justice, Kaduna where he commenced this action on 3rd July, 1984 against the respondents jointly and severally claiming as per paragraph 24 of his amended statement of claim, the following reliefs:-

(1) A declaration that as The Registered Trustee of the Archdiocese of Kaduna of Roman Catholic Church, the plaintiff is by virtue of the said office, the lawful proprietor and owner of Sacred Heart School, Independence way, Kaduna, permission for the establishment whereof was sought by the plaintiff’s predecessor, in-office and was duly granted on or about the 11th day of March, 1966, by the then Ministry of Education, Northern Region of Nigeria pursuant to and in accordance with the Education, Law Cap. 36 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, (as now applicable to Kaduna State), and regulations made thereunder.

(2) A Declaration that as the Proprietor and owner, of the said Sacred Heart School, Kaduna, the plaintiff is lawfully entitled and responsible at his sole discretion to the exclusion of all other persons, more particularly the defendants, their agents, servants or privies whomsoever and howsoever, for the management and control of the said school including the appointment of its Advisory Board, Manager, head mistress and other Staff, Pupils admission and to ensure that the schoool is managed and run in a manner satisfactory to the plaintiff and in compliance with the terms and conditions attached to the grant of proprietorship by the competent authority.

(3) an Order that the defendants more particularly the 2nd defendant should promptly and peacefully vacate, surrender and deliver up to the plaintiff or anyone or persons appointed by the plaintiff possession of the said School and the management and conduct of its affairs and to surrender all property, records and books of the said school in a satisfactory manner and condition.

4. A Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves or their agents, servants, functionaries or privies whomsoever and howsoever from interfering with or hindering the plaintiff’s management and control of the school”.

Pleadings were then filed in court and exchanged between the parties. The Defendants/Respondents in their joint Statement of Defence raised a counter-claim of 27 reliefs all in the nature of declarations. I do not intend to set them out in this judgment.

At the trial, the appellant gave evidence and called two witnesses in support of his claims. The respondents did not give any evidence or call any witness in their defence. Thereafter, learned counsel for the parties addressed the court and the trial court adjourned for judgment. In a considered judgment delivered on the 15th of May, 1987, the learned trial Judge, Ibiyeye, J., (as he then was), gave judgment for the appellant and granted all the reliefs claimed by him. The respondents were unhappy with this decision and they filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal on 7 grounds.

In the Court of Appeal, written briefs were filed and exchanged between the parties. On the 1st of August, 1994, while the appeal was pending, the appellant filed a motion on notice supported by an affidavit seeking the following reliefs:-

“(1) An order granting the respondent/applicant leave to amend the pleadings filed in this suit by amending both the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim by substituting the name of the respondent/applicant as presently appearing on the record with the following new name which is the proper name namely:-

“THE REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF KADUNA OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH”

(ii) Upon the grant of the prayer in (i) above to deem the record of proceedings in this suit as having been amended consequently; and

(iii) Such further or other order or orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.

The application was heard by the Court of Appeal and subsequently granted without any objection by the respondents.

On the 28th September, 1994, the appeal was heard and in the course of the hearing, the Court of Appeal referred to the amendment of the proceedings granted above, and said:-