Customary Court of Appeal Edo State V. Chief (Engr.) E. A. Aguele & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

On the 20th October, 2003, the 1st respondent before the High Court Benin, Edo State filed in suit No. B/163/OS/2003 an originating summons against the appellant and five others for the determination of 3 legal questions set out hereunder:

(1) Whether in the light of the clear and unequivocal provision of section 282(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Customary Court of Appeal of Edo State can entertain, hear and determine a matter that does not raise questions of Customary Law.

(2) Whether or not the Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State is competent to adjudicate on a matter raising question of fair hearing either under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 or under the rules of natural justice.

(3) Whether or not it is permissible for the Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State to extend its jurisdiction beyond what is specifically granted by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vide Section 282(1) thereof.

Wherefore the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State, i.e. the 5th respondent delivered in appeal No.CCA/12A/2002: Emmanuel Aguele v. Mrs. Beatrice Aguele on 14th July, 2003 is unconstitutional, null and void of no effect whatsoever.

(b) An order setting aside the said judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State in its entirety.

All the defendants before the lower court by way of preliminary objection challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the originating summons.

The court took submissions of counsels and on the 26/1/2004 in a considered ruling overruled and dismissed the objection of the appellant, 2nd and 3rd respondents as being unmeritorious.

The appellant being dissatisfied has now appealed to this court on 3 original grounds of appeal filed on the 3/2/2004 and with the leave of this court granted on the 23/3/2004 filed 3 additional grounds of appeal.

From the 6 grounds of appeal the appellant has distilled 3 issues set out thus:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in assuming jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter.
2. Whether the appellant has properly made out a case for this Honourable Court to declare the decision of the learned trial judge a nullity on grounds of bias
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in pronouncing on issues not canvassed before him which has denied the appellant the right to fair hearing.

The 1st respondent’s brief settled by P. I. Okoh of counsel was deemed filed by an order of this court on the 24/11/2004 wherein the following issues were raised.

1. Whether or not the learned trial Judge was right in holding that he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st respondent’s claim.
2. Whether or not the appellant has made out a case for the decision of the lower court to set aside on ground of bias.
3. Whether or not the learned trial judge pronounced on issues not canvassed before him.

The 2nd respondent’s brief was deemed filed on the 11/5/2005 and therein the 2nd respondent adopted and argued on the issues raised by the appellant.