LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State in Suit No. ADSM/9/1992: Yerima Akawa Arnado Peghi V. Mubi Emirate Council & Anor., delivered on 6/3/1997 by C. A, Negamumso J., in which judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff, now deceased but substituted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, declaring, amongst others, the purported election and subsequent appointment of the 2nd Defendant, now Appellant, by the 1st Defendant, now 1st Respondent, as the village head of Michika 11 as null and void in that the Appellant, then 2nd Defendant was not a member of the ruling house of Michika 11.

The original two Defendants, now the Appellant and 1st Respondent, were peeved by the said judgment and had promptly appealed to this Court by a Notice of Appeal on four grounds of appeal filed on 21/3/1997. See the unnumbered pages 99 ? 100 of the record of appeal. However, by series of events ranging from obvious lack of interest on the part of the 1st Respondent as 1st Appellant to participate in the appeal to the death of the

1

original sole Respondent to this appeal, with the leave of Court the original 1st Appellant became the 1st Respondent while the deceased 1st Respondent was eventually substituted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on record. On 7/3/2016, the Appellant sought the leave of Court to file the 4th Further and Better Amended Notice of Appeal on ten grounds of appeal and same was deemed properly filed on 11/4/2016.

The Record of Appeal was duly transmitted to this Court on 23/4/2003, under the then Court of Appeal Rules 2002. The 3rd Further and Better Amended Appellant?s brief was duly filed on 7/3/2016. The 2nd Respondent?s brief was duly filed on 2/2/2016. The 3rd Respondent?s brief was duly filed on 4/5/2016. The 1st Respondent did not file any Respondent?s brief. The Appellant?s Reply brief to the 3rd Respondent? brief was duly filed on 20/5/2016. On 4/5/2016, the 3rd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection against the competence of the Notice of Appeal.

At the hearing of the Appeal on 23/5/2016, Chief L. D. Nzadon, learned senior counsel for the Appellant, appearing with Saad Abubakar Esq., and

2

Hussani G. Maidawa Esq., adopted both the 3rd Amended Appellant?s brief and Appellant?s reply brief to the 3rd Respondent?s brief and relied on a counter affidavit filed on 20/5/2016 as their argument in answer to the Notice of preliminary objection and in support of the appeal and urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection for lacking in merit and to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the court below. On their part, A. J. Akanmode Esq., learned senior counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents appearing with Yakubu Ahmadu Esq., adopted the 2nd and 3rd Respondents? respective briefs as their argument in support of the 3rd Respondent?s notice of preliminary objection and in opposition to the appeal and urged the Court to strike out the Notice of appeal for being incompetent or to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. The 1st Respondent was not represented by counsel and thus did not participate at the hearing of the appeal, having not also file any 1st Respondent?s brief.

In the 3rd Amended Appellant?s brief, the following two issues were identified as arising for determination,

3

namely;
1. Whether yerima Zakawa Arnado Phegi proved his case before the trial Court and was entitled to judgment? (Distilled from grounds 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10)
2. Whether having regard to the fact that the Appellant?s father was the immediate Village Head of Michika II and Yerima Zakawa Arnado Phegi?s uncle contested elections for the position of Village head if Michika II with the Appellant?s father and lost, Yerima Zakawa Arnado Phegi is not stopped from maintaining that the Appellant is not qualified to become the Village Head of Michika II and/or whether the Yerima Zakawa Arnado Phegi has waived any right to exclusivity of a Ruling House for Michika II? (Distilled from Ground 6)

In the 2nd Respondent?s brief, a sole issue was distilled for determination, namely;
?Given the facts of this case and the lawplicable, whether the Appellant can be said to be a member of the ruling house of Michika 11 (Distilled from Grounds 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10)

In the 3rd Respondent?s brief, a sole issue also was distilled for determination, namely;
?Whether by the state of pleadings and evidence