Hon. Alhaji Abdullahi Maccido Ahmad V. Sokoto State House of Assembly & Anor (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ISA AYO SALAMI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Aisha Sani Dahiru, C.J., Sokoto State of Nigeria, delivered on the 18th August, 2000, in suit No. SS/M/271/2000, wherein the applicant on an ex parte application, sought leave of the trial court to enforce his fundamental right to fair hearing, apparently brought under Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, Cap. 62 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

On or about 18th July, 2000, appellant was served with a copy of a petition, written by Alhaji Abubakar Saddiq, Alhaji Almustapha Muhammad and Alhaji Abdulkadir Muhammad, against him and accusing him of poor handling of the implementation of Sharia in Sokoto State, by the 1st respondent, Sokoto State House of Assembly.

The first respondent summoned the appellant to appear before it to answer the allegations contained in the petition on 20th July, 2000 and the respondent duly honoured the summon and attended the hearing of the matter which was further adjourned to 3rd August, 2000. Inspite of the adjournment to 3rd August, 2000, the first respondent proceeded to take evidence of the three petitioners and some other witnesses in his absence without notifying the appellant of the change of date.

Frightened by the turn of events, the appellant commenced an action, suit No. FHC/ABJ/M228/2000, in the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, which granted an interim order restraining the first respondent from further hearing and consideration of the petition. On 8th July, 2000, when the suit was transferred to the Sokoto Division of the Federal High Court, the order of interim injunction was discharged by the court in Abuja. Upon the matter being transferred to Sokoto Judicial Division of Federal High Court, which had no presiding Judge for a period of over one year caused a notice of discontinuance, dated 11th August, 2000, to be filed at the Abuja Division, where the case file and order for transfer were lying as at that date.

Thereafter, appellant filed a fresh suit aforementioned in the Sokoto High Court, which was assigned to the Chief Judge and fixed for hearing on 15th August, 2000. However, on 14th August, 2000, the first respondent, notwithstanding the pendency of the suit before the State High Court, proceeded with the hearing of the petition until 24 August, 2000, when it published its resolution recommending the retirement of the appellant from his office as Grand Kadi Sokoto State to the State Governor.

When the suit came up for hearing on the scheduled date, learned trial Chief Judge suo motu raised the issues of likelihood of bias, jurisdiction and abuse of court process based on a letter dated 11th June, 2000, written from the office of the Attorney-General of Sokoto State to the trial Chief Judge alleging pendency of similar suit, No. FHC.ABJ/M.228/2000 in the Federal High Court. Learned trial Chief Judge then invited counsel to address the court on those allegations and appellant’s counsel did. On completion of the address and without hearing learned Counsel on the application for leave to enforce fundamental rights of the appellant, the matter was reserved for ruling on 22nd August, 2000.

The ruling on the preliminary issues was, however, delivered on 18th August, 2000. The learned trial Judge, in that ruling, declined jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant being a judicial officer like herself and both of them being part of the government the court would be a Judge in its own cause should it assume jurisdiction.

She further found that a similar suit was pending before the Sokoto Division of the Federal High Court and in the result struck out the action. Clearly, the application for leave to enforce appellant’s right had not been canvassed not to talk of being refused.

The appellant, being unhappy and dissatisfied, appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal. And in accordance with the practice and procedure of this court, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. The appellant framed three issues from the four grounds of appeal contained in the memorandum of appeal dated 21st August, 2000. The issues identified in the appellant’s brief as arising for determination are:-

“(a) Whether or not the High Court of Sokoto State has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellant’s application for enforcement of the right to fair hearing against the respondents in this case – this issue arise from ground one of the appeal.

(b) Whether in all the circumstances of this case, the reliance by the learned Chief Judge on the letter dated 11/6/2000, written by the Attorney-General of Sokoto State as basis for holding that a similar action was pending and disregard of the notice of discontinuance, dated 11th August, 2000, filed by the appellant is proper – this issue arise from grounds two and three of the grounds of appeal.

(c) Whether the learned Chief Judge properly exercised her discretion in striking out the application of the appellant, this issue arises from ground 4 of the grounds of appeal.”

On the other hand, the respondents framed only one issue for determination. It reads as follows:-