Adamu Abubakar v. Yohanna Rai (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The Appeal emanated from the decision of Adamawa State, High Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in Appeal No. ADSM/116A/2019, delivered on 19th March, 2021 by Hon. Justice Helen L. Nuhu, whereof the court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Area Court, Uba, delivered on the 18th December, 2019.

At the trial Area Court, Uba, Appellant herein, who was the Plaintiff at the area Court, had sought the following reliefs:

(a) Declaration of title to the Customary right over the land situate at Uba Mayo Bani, Mubi North Local Government Area Adamawa State as the beneficial owner.

(b) An Order of interlocutory (sic) injunction restraining the defendant and his privies from trespassing to the land in dispute.

(c) Cost of Action

The trial Area Court Judge, on 16/12/2019, held that the plaintiff was the true beneficial owner of the land and granted the injunction sought, restraining the defendant and privies from trespassing into the land. (See page 48 of the records of appeal). The defendant did not call any witness in the case, but raised issue of res judicata, which was dismissed by the trial Area Court.

Dissatisfied, the defendant, as appellant, filed appeal against that decision of the trial Area Court, and after hearing the appeal, the learned High Court Judge (hereafter referred to as lower court) allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Area Court. The trial court said:

The respondent failed to debunk the claim of the appellant that the matter came on appeal to upper Area Court, Mubi in case No. UAC/MU/GGS/CVA/6/91 between the same parties, where title to the disputed land was declared in favour of Adamu Agoni, a privy of the appellant.

Accordingly, I hereby find and hold that the trial court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the action as same is res judicata, the case having been tried by the same court involving the same parties and their privies and even went on appeal. Ground one of the additional grounds of appeal stands, having resolved this issue in favour of the appellant.

Consequently, I shall not delve into the other issues formulated by both parties as same would amount to an academic exercise in futility. A court (sic) without jurisdiction, no matter how well conducted the proceedings and judgment of the court certainly amounts to an exercise in futility and such judgment is null and void and of no effect.

The plea of res judicata is of a special nature, as it operates not only against the parties but also against the court itself and robs it of its jurisdiction to entertain the same cause of action on this same parties previously determined between the same parties or their privies by a court of competent jurisdiction.

I agree with the submission of the appellants counsel in toto and the authorities cited by the appellant’s counsel as I am bound by them being decisions of Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (Pages 234 – 235 of the records)

The lower court further said on page 236 of the records of appeal: