Alhaji Tahir Maigoro V Alhaji Jibrin Garba (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJIWUNMI, J.S.C

In the High Court of Yola, holden at Yola, the plaintiff (now appellant) commenced this action against the defendant (now respondent) in Suit No. GGSY/11/89. By paragraph 15 of his Statement of Claim, dated 11th April, 1989, the appellant’s claims against the defendant were as follows:-

“By reasons of the matters aforesaid, the plaintiffs was wrongfully detained in police cell, and deprived of his liberty, and has greatly injured his credit, character and reputation and portrayed falsely as an arsonic (sic) criminal has been put to contempt, ridicule to his family and the entire public and has been put to considerate trouble, inconvenience, and anxiety.

(i) An injunction against the defendant his agents, servants, privies however from further false malicious prosecution, defamation, or criminal allegation however against the plaintiff.

(ii) And the plaintiff claims against the defendant the sum of N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand Naira) being damages for defamation, false malicious prosecution, injury to his character and reputation, wrongful detention and false detention as a result of malicious criminal defamation and allegations made to the police at the instance of the defendant together with 10% interest from the date of judgment until payment.”

After pleadings had been filed and exchanged, the matter proceeded to hearing. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge, Abba, J. delivered a considered judgment wherein he upheld the claim of the appellant. As the respondent was not satisfied with that judgment, he appealed to the Court below. The respondent was successful in the Court below as his appeal was allowed. Not satisfied with the judgment and orders of the court below, the appellant has now appealed to this Court.

The facts of this case are simple. On the night of the 21st of November, 1988 at about 2.00 a.m. one of the vehicles owned by the respondent was engulfed by fire that eventually destroyed it. The respondent then made a report to the police about the incident. At the Station, when asked if he knew who could have done the act, he confessed that he knew of no one. When he was further asked if there was anyone he could describe as his enemy, the respondent mentioned the appellant as his old political enemy. Following that disclosure, the police promptly arrested the appellant and was detained at the Police cell for about three days. Though he was later granted bail, he was arraigned before the Upper Area court No. 1 Yola, but was eventually discharged by that Court for the offences for which he was charged. It was after he was so discharged that the appellant commenced this action against the respondent.

As I have said earlier, the appellant has appealed to this Court following the decision of the Court below. Pursuant thereto, the appellant has filed five grounds of appeal against the judgment and orders of the Court below. And in accordance with the Rules of this Court. Briefs of Argument were filed, served and exchanged by the parties. It must be noted at this point, that the brief filed for the respondent included the respondent’s notice of Preliminary Objection to the appellant’s brief of argument and also the respondent’s argument in response to that of the appellant in the appellant’s brief. The appellant, though duly served with the respondent’s brief did not file a reply to the said brief. That remained the position until the hearing of this appeal.

At the hearing, the appellant was not in Court and was not represented by his legal pactitioner. As the learned counsel for the respondent then adopted and placed reliance on the respondent’s brief and invited the Court to the notice of preliminary objection he had raised in the said brief.

I will therefore consider whether the said notice of preliminary objection has merit. The notice of preliminary objection reads, and I quote:-

“At the hearing of this appeal, the respondent will raise a Preliminary Objection to grounds 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal upon which issues 1,2,3,4, and 5 were formulated for determination in the Appellant’s Brief. See Ajide v. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR(Pt.12) at page 248.”

Grounds for Preliminary Objection:-

“(1) It will be submitted that grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are at best grounds of fact or mixed law and facts, for which leave of the Court below or the Supreme Court should have been first obtained before filing same. See Section 213(3) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, Ajayi v. Omorogbe (1993) 7 SCNJ 168, especially at 182 last paragraph and Oluwole v. Lagos State Dev. Property Corporation (1983) 5 S.C. 1.

(2) In addition grounds 3, 4, and 5 are patently and latently defective because the three grounds allege errors in and misdirection all at the same time. This, it will be humbly submitted for the Respondent, is contrary to law and settled authorities. The Respondent will rely on the case of Nwadike and Ors. v. Ibekwe & Ors. (1987) 12 SC 14 especially at 54 per Nnaemeka Agu J.S.C. as he then was line 35-39.