Alhaji Mohammed Magaji V. Alhaji Musa Kuyanbana (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant in this appeal was the Plaintiff at the Upper Area Court, Keana. At the trial Upper Area Court, the Plaintiff had claimed per his Writ of Summons as follows:-

“3. That the Plaintiff is the rightful customary owner of a parcel of land lying and situate at Okyokulo Road, Daddere.

4. That the land was lent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff wishes to take same back.”

Whereof the Plaintiff claims thus:

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the Customary Owner of the land.
2. A perpetual order of injunction restraining the Defendant, his privies servants, assignments, beneficiaries, etc. from further act of trespass on the Plaintiff’s land.
3. Any further orders the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The trial court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.

Dissatisfied, the Defendant appealed to the High Court of Justice, whereat the court upturned the decision of the trial court. This Appeal is from the decision of the said High Court.

I shall in this Judgment simply refer to the Upper Area Court as the trial court, while the High Court sitting on the Appeal shall be referred to as the Lower Court or the Court below interchangeably.

The lower court after a review of the facts and the submissions concluded thus:-

“1. On the whole, and in view of the above findings and holdings we hold that this Appeal has merit. We allow this appeal on all grounds. We hereby set aside the decision of the lower court awarding title to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

2. We also set aside the Writ of Possession granted to the Plaintiff as it affects the Defendant’s land.”

As is the tradition and practice of this court, the Appellant filed a Brief of Argument on the 12th September, 2012 in support of his Appeal. The Respondent in reaction filed the Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 31st October, 2012.

The parties, at the hearing adopted their respective Briefs of Argument as filed. For the Appellant he distilled 3 issues from the six grounds of Appeal filed for our determination, whilst the Respondent also formulated 3 grounds for determination.

I have perused the respective issues posed by each party for determination and note that the issues are not only similar but indeed the same in all ramifications. That is to say Issues 1, 2 and 3 of each of the parties tally in tandem. I shall therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the issues formulated by the Appellant for after all it is his Appeal.

Before then, I should point out that legal work is one that requires not only skill on the part of its practitioner but it does require meticulous and due diligence. In this wise, therefore, learned counsel must ensure that as a minister in the temple of Justice where only learned men practice, the proof of true learning must be exhibited, not only in advocacy, but indeed in the drafting of legal documents. Drafting, being a skill that is expressed in the English Language, must convey the intent and purpose not only in clear and terse language but must show the appreciation of the English Language which is the tool of the profession.

I say this because all the 3 issues formulated for determination by the Respondent, are each clogged in typographical or grammatical errors in either the tenses used or adjectives employed. Counsel owe not only the courts but indeed owe the legal profession and themselves the duty of care in ensuring that documents drafted for use in courts meet the minimum standard of quality befitting the learned profession. This is more so in this meteoric or jet age of the 21st century when the lawyer’s role as the beacon of learning and skill is much more placed on the front burner of high expectations and meticulous scrutiny or searchlight. Applying this expected searchlight, I must say that the Briefs of the parties particularly that of the Respondent needed a lexical overhaul.