Hon. Adedotun Akinmade & Ors V. Hon. Donaldson Abiodun Ajayi (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.

This is an appeal by the Appellants against the Ruling of Hon. Justice E.G. Osinuga of the Ogun State High Court sitting at Abeokuta in Suit No. AB/181/2006

The appellants filed a Preliminary Objection to the effect that the Honourable Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the plaintiff now respondent was challenging his impeachment as Chairman, Abeokuta South Local Government Council on the ground that it was purely a legislative matter. In the substantive action, the plaintiff/respondent had sought for a determination of the question:

“Whether the purported impeachment of the plaintiff from office as the Chairman of the Abeokuta South Local Government by the 1st-13th defendant on 9th January, 2006 was in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Local Government Law of Ogun State 2000”

The learned trial Judge overruled the objection and held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Being dissatisfied with the said Ruling the appellants appealed against it by a Notice of Appeal dated 9th November, 2006 containing one ground of appeal which reads:

“The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that he had jurisdiction to entertain this suit,

PARTICULARS

1. Section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution is also applicable to Local Government”.

From this lone ground of appeal the following issue was formulated for determination namely:-

“Whether the trial court was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s complaints”.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent formulated the following two issues, albeit from the sole ground of appeal filed for determination:-

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right when she held that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent against his purported impeachment by the appellants.

Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case and specific reliefs claimed by the respondent before the lower court in his originating Summons, the court cannot grant the plaintiff/respondent’s reliefs in exercise of court’s powers under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act”.

The Respondent did not file a cross-appeal and so could not formulate two Issues from a single ground of appeal. Moreover the second issue does not relate to the ground of appeal reproduced above. The second issue is incompetent and it is accordingly struck out together with the argument proffered on it.