Alhaji Umar Abba-tukur V Government Of Gongola State (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. OPUTA, J.S.C.

On the 20th day of October, 1987 when this appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant, G. Brown Peterside, S.A.N. started and stated thus:

“The main appeal is still pending. The present appeal arose from the Ruling of the Court of Appeal Jos Division delivered on the 2nd day of April 1987 on a preliminary objection that the main appeal was incompetent.”

An appeal against a Ruling delivered on a preliminary objection seems to be rather an “unwarranted” luxury. Since the preliminary objection will not finally determine the real questions in controversy in this case such points arising there from could have safely awaited the eventual outcome of the case and then be urged on appeal against the final decision.

Secondly the issue in dispute in this case is whether or not Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur is or is not still the Emir of Muri. This is an issue of great public interest – to the State Government, to the people of Muri who would want to know who their Emir is, and to Alhaji Tukur himself who would want to know whether he is still a ruler or a subject.

I agree that these preliminary skirmishes may be of profound interest to lawyers and may even enhance the growth of the law but one has to balance such interest against the responsibility to treat certain cases (like the present case) with speedy dispatch.

The background facts as reflected in both Briefs of learned counsel on either side are not in dispute. On the 12th day of August 1986 Colonel Yohana Madaki, the then Governor of Gongola State, issued an Order removing Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur as Emir of Muri. On 19th August, 1986 the said Alhaji Tukur filed Suit FHC/K/Mg/86 in the Federal High Court Kano seeking an Order of Court to quash the said Deposition Order of 12/8/86. He (Alhaji Tukur) claimed other reliefs including inter alia:

(i) A Declaration that he is still the Emir of Muri in Jalingo Local Government area of Gongola State.

(ii) A Declaration that his detention by the Governor of Gongola State is illegal.

On the 16th day of October, 1986, Alhaji Umaru Tukur again filed an application at the Federal High Court Kano for an Order restraining the Government of Gongola State from appointing a new Emir of Muri pending the determination of the substantive suit FHC/K/Mg/86. There was also a prayer for an Order to release the said Alhaji Tukur from detention.

In a Ruling delivered on 24th October 1986 the Kano Federal High Court per Belgore, J. (as he then was) ordered the immediate release of Alhaji Tukur from detention and also ordered that no new Emir of Muri should be appointed by the Gongola State Government pending the determination of the substantive Suit FHC/K/Mg/86. In another Ruling dated the same 24th October 1986, Belgore, J. (as he then was) held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the substantive action.

The Gongola State Government dissatisfied and aggrieved by the above two Rulings of 24/10/86 filed at the Registry of the Federal High Court Kano on 5/11/86 a Notice of Appeal against them (decision and Orders of the Federal High Court Kano). On the 17th November 1986 the self-same Gongola State Government filed yet another Notice of Appeal against the decision and orders of the Federal High Court Kano dated 24/10/86. This second Notice of Appeal (Notice of 17/11/86) was filed at the Federal High Court Lagos while the earlier Notice of 5/11/86 was, as I observed above filed at the Federal High Court Kano.

The appeal of the Gongola State Government, based on the Notices filed in Kano and in Lagos, was ultimately transferred to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division for hearing and determination. Briefs were ordered, filed, and exchanged. Thereafter the appeal was set down for hearing on the 4th day of March, 1987. On the 25/2/87 G. Brown-Peterside, S.A.N., learned counsel for Alhaji Umaru Tukur, Respondent in the Appeal pending before the Jos Division of the Court of Appeal, filed a Notice of preliminary Objection under Order 3 Rule 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended. The objections were as follows:

“1. That one of the Notices of Appeal herein is incompetent, and