Halima Hassan Tukur V. Garba Umar Uba & Ors (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, holden at Sokoto, delivered on 8th September, 2011 in appeal No.CA/S/34/2011 wherein it set aside the September, 2011 in appeal No. CA/S/34/2011 wherein it set aside the judgment of the trial Federal High Court, Sokoto, which was delivered on 30/3/2011 in suit No.FHC/S/CS/8/2011.

The Appellant herein had earlier commenced an action before the Abuja Federal High Court by an Originating Summons filed on 7/02/2011 against the 1st and 2nd Respondents then described as Defendants. The suit was later transferred to Sokoto Federal High Court on 7/3/2011. The Originating Summons was later amended to join the 3rd Defendant now 1st Respondent to the suit. At the end of the day, judgment was entered in favour of the Appellant as per her amended Originating Summons filed on (See; pages 724-736 and pages 1068-1081 respectively of the records).

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Federal High Court, the 1st & 2nd Defendants appealed to the court below and the judgment of the trial Federal High Court was set aside on 8/9/2011 in their favour.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below led to the instant appeal to this court by the 1st Respondent. The appellant filed two Notices of Appeal. The first Notice of Appeal was filed on 8/9/2011 while the 2nd Notice of Appeal was filed on 24/11/2011. (See pages 424-426 and 1-13 in the main volume and the Supplementary record respectively).

Parties, in compliance with the Rules of this court filed and exchanged their briefs of argument.

Upon being served with the Record of appeal, the appellant filed her brief of argument on 13/12/2011. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their joint Respondents’ brief of argument on 16/01/2012 and same was deemed properly filed and served on 19/3/2012, while the 3rd Respondent also filed its brief of argument on 23/12/2011 and same was deemed properly filed and served on 19/3/2012. The Appellant in response to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ brief of argument filed a Reply brief of argument on 7/2/2012 and the said reply was deemed as properly filed and served on 19/3/2012.

On the 16th of April, 2012 when the appeal came up for hearing, Mr. Maikyau, learned senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents referred to the Joint Brief of argument filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents on 16/01/2012. He referred to their Notice of Preliminary Objection separately filed on 16/01/2012. He sought leave of court to move the said notice save from grounds c, d, e, g and h. In other words, he then relied on only grounds a, b, and f. He referred to the Notice of Preliminary Objection in the brief of argument on pages 30-39. The said grounds now relied upon for the Preliminary objection are as follows:

(a) The Appellant filed two Notices of Appeal on 8th of September, 2011 and 24th November, 2011 respectively

(b) The grounds in the two Notices of Appeal were argued by the Appellant in the Appellant’s brief of Argument dated 12th of December, 2011 and filed on the 13th December, 2011.

(c) The maintaining of the two Notices of Appeal by the Appellant constitutes an abuse of the process of this court.

The arguments in support of the grounds of objection are contained in the brief of argument as follows:

Learned Senior Counsel to the Respondents referred to the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 24th of November, 2011 and submitted that it is an abuse of the process of this court. He conceded that the appellant has the right to file numerous Notices of Appeal subject to compliance with the requirements of law as to their competence. He submitted that the maintenance of the second Notice of Appeal in the light of the Notice of Appeal filed on the 8th of September 2011 constitutes an abuse of the process of this court. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the Notice of Appeal dated 8/9/2011 has the same parties, deals with the same judgment as the Notice of Appeal filed on 24/11/2011. He submitted that both Notices of Appeal have been argued in the Appellant’s brief of argument filed on the 13th December, 2011 and this constitutes an abuse of the process of this court. He relied on Dingyadi & Anor Vs INEC (2010) 4-7 SC (pt.1) 32.

Learned Senior Counsel urged the court to dismiss the appeal with costs