Alhaji Bani Gaa Budo Nuhu Vs Alhaji Isola Are Ogele (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I.C. PATS ACHOLUNU, JSC. 

The appellant was the Plaintiff who instituted an action in Ilorin Upper Area Court claiming a parcel of land from the Defendant now the Respondent. After hearing the parties that Court gave judgment in favour of Plaintiff i.e. Appellant.

The Respondent appealed to the High Court and framed 8 grounds of Appeal. At the date the matter was set down for hearing he sought the leave of the Court to file an additional ground of Appeal making it up to 9 grounds. On that same date the Respondent (as appellant therein) decided to argue only ground 9. This method or practice adopted by the Respondent then was obviously opposed by the other party. The High Court overruled the Appellant’s Counsel but in a reserved judgment dismissed the appeal on that one ground and made no further mention of the other 8 grounds. The point in contention and adumbrated in the 9th ground was that the Upper Area Court gave its judgment in chambers and not in open court and therefore such a procedure did violence to the Constitution.

The Respondent thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that it was perverse for the High Court to hold that there was nothing on the records to suggest that the judgment was delivered in camera. The successful party cross-appealed on the ground that the unargued eight grounds should have been regarded as having been abandoned and should therefore have been struck out. The Court of Appeal in a reserved judgment allowed the Appeal stating in unmistakable terms that the trial in the Upper Area Court was obviously a nullity, having found that the judgment was in Chambers. It dismissed the Cross-Appeal describing the quest for its agitation as pure academic exercise. The Appellant then appealed to this Court and filed 7 grounds in the notice of Appeal.

Parties filed their briefs of argument but the Respondent meanwhile filed a notice of preliminary objection on the premise that the Appellant did not obtain the leave of the Court before filing his appeal and therefore the Court could not validly exercise any jurisdiction. In the alternative he argued that grounds (iii) (iv) and (v) are vague for non-compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent Chief Olanipekun SAN contended in his argument that the decision of the Court of Appeal appealed from was a mere interlocutory decision and not a final judgment. His postulation is that the decision being an interlocutory judgment and not a final judgment as he conceived it, the Appellant should have sought the leave of this Court.

What then is the test of a final judgment? I believe that when a matter comes for adjudication before a tribunal of justice for the determination of an issue in controversy in order to enable parties know for certainty the state of affairs in respect of the matter, a finding that would finally settle that issue the subject matter of the appeal at that material time in the sense that there shall be no more reference to it in that matter, is a decision that can be said to be final for that purpose. In the course of the history of a civil matter or any controversy, such a matter or cause may make a second journey, and there may be various legal off-shoots of the case which call for a through examination, synthesisation, and analysis with a view to finding an answer. The determination of that issue by the Court called upon to pronounce on the singular subject matter arising from the main action is to all intents and purposes a final judgment. Thus in Exparte Moore, in re Faithful (1885) 14 Qbd. 627, 54 L.J. QB 190 Brett M.R. said;

“If the Court orders something to be done, according to the answer to the enquiries, without further reference to itself, the judgment is final.”

Also is Standard Discount C. V. Le Grange (1877) 3 CPD. 71, 37 LT. 372, Brett, L.J. (as he then was) held:

“No order, judgment or other procedure can be final which does not at once affect the status of the parties for whichever side the decision is given.”

See also Blay V. Solomon (1947) WACA vol. 12, 175, Ifediorah V. Ume (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 5, NSCC vol. 19 at 570, Ude V. Agu (1961) All NWLR 65, Omolowo V. African Newspapers Ltd. & Anor. (1991) NWLR (Pt. 209) 371 at 380.

Having regard to the judgment appealed against and which states unequivocably that the decision given by a lower court is a nullity, it is unquestionably a final judgment. I therefore hold that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the judgment of Upper Area Court which it was roundly convinced was held in chambers was a final judgment in the sense that it outrightly disposed of the question referred to it.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent had equally contended that grounds (iii) and (v) were vague or novel in that they do not challenge the decision of the lower Court on either a mistake of law or fact, and that ground (iv) is vague for lack of expatiation. I shall deal with the objection. The term vague connotes something woolly, equivocal, a state of affair that does not lend itself easily to comprehension, something blurry and nebulous, uncertain or shadowy. In considering ground (iv) of the grounds of Appeal it is note-worthy that the Appellants stated thus;

“The learned Justice of the Court of Appeal erred in law in their exposition of what a record of Appeal is.”