Alhaji Mansur Ahmed & Ors V. The Registered Trustees Of Archdiocese Of Kaduna Of The Roman Catholic Church (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna delivered on 23rd February, 2006 dismissing the appeal of the Appellants from the decision of the High Court of Justice, Kaduna State delivered on 15th May, 1987 in Suit No. KDH/256/84. The dispute between the parties relates to and concerns the ownership and the right of control and management of Sacred Heart Primary School, Independence Way, Kaduna.

In its Judgment, the lower Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellants and affirmed the Judgement of the trial Court. Being dissatisfied, the Appellants have further filed final appeal to this Court vide their Notice of Appeal dated 17th March, 2006 on six grounds. The Appellant have filed an Amended Notice of Appeal dated 27th October, 2017, which was deemed filed on 31st October, 2017.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The present Respondent, as Plaintiff in the trial Court commenced an action against the Appellants as Defendants and claimed reliefs listed in the Amended Statement of claim dated 7th July, 1986 at pages 17-18 of the Record of Appeal.

1

At trial, pleadings were ordered and duly exchanged. At the hearing of the suit, the Plaintiff called three witnesses who testified and tendered documents. The Appellants did not offer any form of evidence in support of their defense and rested their case on that of the plaintiff (now Respondent)

The trial Judge delivered its judgment in the case on 15th May, 1987 and granted the reliefs sought by the Respondent herein. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Appellants filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. The lower Court upheld the Judgment of the trial Court leading to the instant appeal brought as an expression of displeasure at the Judgment of the lower Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Appellant formulated five (5) issues for determination at pages 2-3 of the Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument, thus:

“(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it failed to consider the Appellants amended statement of defence dated 4th August 1986 in delivering its judgment and so denied the Appellant fair hearing.

(2) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the proper plaintiff was in Court in view of the amendment granted by the Court of Appeal to the change in name of the Plaintiff. If so, what was the proper order to make regarding a retrial in these circumstances

(3) Whether considering the evidence before the Court, the Court of Appeal ought to have

2