Emmanuel Ikeaja Mpama V. First Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division delivered on the 29th November, 2001 which allowed the appeal from the judgment of Njiribeako, J. of the Umuahia High Court in Suit No.HU/104/86 delivered on the 16th October, 1991. The lower court ordered a re-trial of the said Suit No.HU/104/86 on the ground that the Trial Court violated the rule of fair hearing in the sense that the present Respondent who was the 2nd Defendant during the trial at the High Court was not given the opportunity to sum up or address the Court before judgment of the Court was delivered on the 16th October, 1991.

Briefly the facts were that the present Appellant who was Plaintiff in the Trial Court took out a Writ of Summons against one Mrs. Patience Ukauwa and another in the High Court Umuahia as 1st and 2nd Defendants claiming the following reliefs:-

a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to the statutory Certificate of Occupancy in respect of a piece or parcel of land situate and known as No.49 Awkuzu Lane, Umuahia, Imo state (now Abia State) of Nigeria (together with the building thereon) within the jurisdiction of the Court and with an annual rental value of N10.00.

b) An order of court compelling the defendants to return to the Plaintiff, title deed of the Plaintiff to the said piece or parcel of land which the Plaintiff handed over to the 1st Defendant as security for repayment of a loan of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) which the 1st Defendant gave to the plaintiff in 1982.

c) An injunction permanently restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and/or workmen from selling the said piece or parcel of land on 8/10/86 or thereafter as advertised in the Daily Star Newspapers of 4/9/86 or dealing with the piece or parcel of land (together with the building thereon) in any other manner whatsoever.

Pleadings having been filed and exchanged, the matter proceeded to be heard and the Trial court gave judgment to the Plaintiff (Appellant in this appeal before us) in all the reliefs sought.

The 1st defendant did not appeal. The 2nd Defendant as Appellant in the Court below formulated three issues for determination by the lower Court namely:-

a) Whether the Trial Court was not in breach of the rule of fair hearing by not giving opportunity to counsel to sum up the case of the 2nd Defendant and comment thereon before judgment.

b) Whether the failure of the Trial Court to consider or adequately consider the equitable defences pleaded by the 2nd Defendant was lawful.

c) Whether the Trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before it and made adequate findings of facts before entering judgment for the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff as Respondent in the court below also distilled three issues for determination:-

A. Whether the Trial Court gave equal opportunity to each side to present its case and address to the court before judgment.

B. Whether the Trial Court adequately considered the evidence advanced to support the claim and defence of both sides.