Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi V. Barr. Nasiru Audu Dangiri & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Division on appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State which struck out appellant’s Originating Summons seeking to set aside his impeachment by the Taraba State House of Assembly.

Appellant was serving his second term as Deputy Governor of Taraba State.

On the 4th of September, 2012 members of the Taraba State House of Assembly laid before the Speaker of the said House, a notice of complaint of gross misconduct against the appellant. On the said 4th September, the complaint was served on the appellant for his reaction. Appellant duly prepared and forwarded his reply to the charges laid against him.

On 18th September, 2012 the House passed a Motion, pursuant to Section 188(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct against the appellant. Consequent upon the resolution of the House to investigate the allegations against the appellant, the Speaker of the Taraba State House of Assembly requested the Acting Chief Judge of the State to constitute a 7-member panel to investigate the allegations pursuant to Section 188(5) of the Constitution (supra).

Appellant filed an Originating Summons and a motion restraining the Panel from investigating the allegations against him. Appellant alleged that in spire of his motion, the panel went ahead with the investigation, at the conclusion of which it submitted its report to the House. Appellant filed an amended Originating Summons to incorporate new issues relating to denial of fair hearing in the proceedings of the Panel.

In support of the amended Originating Summons, appellant filed a 34 paragraph affidavit. The Respondents filed a joint counter-affidavit of 27 paragraphs. The appellant filed a further affidavit of 14 paragraphs.

At the trial, learned counsel for the panel called five witnesses and closed his case. Appellant’s learned counsel called one witness and asked for four days adjournment on health grounds to enable the appellant call two more witnesses and testify on his behalf. He alleged that the application was denied and the appellant’s case was closed by the Panel. The Panel submitted its report which was adopted by the House and based on same; the House removed the appellant from office.

Appellant continued to prosecute his Amended Originating Summons to which the respondents had raised a preliminary objection challenging the procedure in the commencement of the suit.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge concluded inter alia:

“Since the plaintiff have (sic) commenced this case by way of an originating summons and not through the Writ of Summons, questions and allegations of denial of fair hearing which will certainly involve acrimonious and riotous dispute of fact it will be inappropriate on the part of this Court to proceed to resolve this complaint under the procedure chosen and adopted by the plaintiff. The objection raised by the defendants therefore has merit as the deficiencies highlighted in the case are fatal. The case is only good for striking out and it is hereby struck out.”

In his appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment, appellant formulated the following three issues from his grounds of appeal for determination in his brief of argument:

“1. Whether having regard to the fact that no order or relief is sought against either the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State or the Taraba State House of Assembly their non-joinder is fatal to the plaintiff’s suit. (Ground 1 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

2. Whether the action being commenced by originating summons is incompetent. (Ground 2 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).
3. Whether the Honourable learned trial Judge ought to have set aside the proceedings and the report of the Seven-man Panel which investigated the allegation of gross misconduct against the appellant for want of fair hearing. (Ground 3 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal)”

The above issues were adopted by the respondents in their joint brief of argument.