Alhaji Nura Ahmadi Kurfi V. Hajia Binta Aminu (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. 

The Respondent, as Plaintiff before the lower Court, was granted leave to place the suit under the Undefended List. The Appellant, Defendant therein, filed an affidavit in opposition, in support of his Notice of Intention to Defend, to which the Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit and the Appellant a Further and Better Affidavit. The lower Court, in a Judgment delivered on 12th December 2014 by Hon. Justice Sanusi Tukur of the Katsina State High Court, refused leave to the Appellant to defend the suit and entered Judgment in terms of the Respondent’s Writ of Summons. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant has appealed to this Court. Two Notices of Appeal were filed, one on 12th November 2014 and another on 15th December 2014.

In compliance with the Rules of Court, the Appellant filed, on 11th December 2015, a Brief of Arguments, settled by Israel Usman Esq and C.U. Kalu Esq of C.U. Kalu & Co. The Appellant’s Counsel, in his Brief, withdrew the first Notice of Appeal filed, placing reliance on the second Notice.

Four issues were distilled by Appellant’s Counsel

1

for the Court’s determination, namely:
(a) Whether or not the learned trial judge was right in assuming jurisdiction when the cause of action did not arise in Katsina State and the Defendant/Appellant is not resident in Katsina State. (Ground 6)
(b) Whether or not the learned trial judge could rightly enter judgment on the Undefended List instead of transferring the matter to the General Cause List. (Ground 1,2,3,7 and 8.)
(c) Whether or not the claims awarded to the Defendant/Respondent are multiple compensation on a matter arising from a contract. (Ground 4)
(d) Whether or not the learned trial judge was right to treat an agreement for investment and profit sharing in the same manner as a loan needs to be repaid. (Ground 5)

The Respondent’s Counsel, A.S. Yarima of Baban Zahrah & Associates, formulated two issues for determination, to wit:
1. Whether or not the learned Trial judge was right in Law when he assumed Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s Claim and;
2. Whether or not the learned Trial Judge was right in Law when he placed this Matter under Undefended List and entered judgment in favour of the

2

Plaintiff/Respondent.

Before proceeding to the issues which I consider arise for determination, it is necessary to first dispense with the competence of the 1st issue raised by the Appellant, which is the same as the 4th issue for determination raised by the Respondent, being whether the lower Court was right to have assumed jurisdiction over the claim.

Arguing the issue, the Appellant’s Counsel has contended that both parties reside and carry on business in Abuja and that by the combined effect of Section 270 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Section 98 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S8 Laws of the Federation 2004 and Order 4 of the Katsina State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987, it is the High Court in the Federal Capital Territory that has jurisdiction of the Respondents’ claim. The Respondent’s Counsel however contends that the parties reside both in Katsina State and Abuja and that the title documents given by the Appellant to the Respondent as security, are in respect of property at Katsina.

I note, from the processes filed by the Appellant’s Counsel at the lower Court and at the hearing of

3

the application before that Court, that this issue was never raised at or pronounced upon by the lower Court.