Amana V. Igala Area Traditional Council & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. 

The Appellant’s late father was appointed and beaded by the Attah of Igala, (the Attah), as the Onu-Ojokogbe of Ochadamu Community and District Head of Ochadamu District made up of 20 villages including Ochadamu town, Emewe Ochadamu, Olofu-Olama, Ejule, Umomi town and Ajedime.

Later on, the Attah, through the 1st Respondent, appointed and beaded the 2nd Respondent as the Agenyi-Attah and put him in control of Ochadamu town, Emewe-Ochadamu, Okele, Ofejiji, Alame-Ejule, Ikpakejo, Umomi town, Ogbakpedo and Ajedime villages as caretaker in trust for the Attah.

On ground of alleged misconduct and disloyalty, the Onu-Ojokogbe was debeaded by the Attah and his areas of caretaker-ship were limited to Ojokogbe (Utu), Obaje-Ako, Ofakaga No. 2, Okabo and Owowolo villages.

​Aggrieved by the action of the Attah, the Onu-Ojokobge initiated a legal action before the High Court of Kogi State against 1st Respondent, Alh. (Dr.) Aliyu Obaje (Attah of lgala), the 2nd and 3rd Respondents by which he sought the nullification of the action of the Attah in reducing the areas of his caretaker-ship and debeading him on ground of lack of fair hearing. He also sought injunctive reliefs against the Respondents (Defendants).

At the end of trial, the High Court found for the Appellant’s father and entered judgment in his favour on the 6th of May, 2011 against which the Respondents appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (Court below) vide the Notice of Appeal dated 17th June, 2011.

In the judgment delivered on the 8th December, 2016, the Court below allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial High Court.

Being dissatisfied with that decision by the Court below, the appellant brought this final appeal by the Notice of Appeal dated 19th but filed on 21st December, 2016 which was amended by the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 19th November 2018, deemed on 1st April, 2019.

​

Briefs of argument were filed by the learned counsel for the parties in line with the Rules of the Court as follows:-

1. Appellant’s Amended Brief filed on the 19th of November, 2018, deemed on 1st April, 2019;
2. 1st and 3rd Respondents’ Brief filed on the 19th of July, 2021, deemed on the 18th of January, 2022;
3. Amended 2nd Respondent’s Brief filed on the 22nd December, 2021 deemed 18th January, 2022 and
4. Appellant’s Reply Brief to the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ Brief filed on 13th January, 2022, deemed on 18th January, 2022.

Before proceeding with the consideration of the issues submitted for determination in the Briefs of argument, I have carefully perused the thirteen (13) grounds set out on the Amended Notice of Appeal relied on by the Appellant for the prosecution of the appeal and note that like the initial Notice of Appeal mentioned above, it was filed as of right.

By the provisions of Section 233 (2)(a), an appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court below to this Court as of right where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in civil or criminal proceedings before the Court below. Then, Sub-section (3) of the Section provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), and appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court below to this Court with the leave of the Court below or this Court.

​Put briefly, the prescription in these simple provisions is that an appeal against the decision of the Court below to this Court shall lie and be brought as of right where the ground/s involve/s question/s of law alone otherwise prior leave of the Court below or this Court is required, as a condition precedent, to bring the appeal where the grounds do not involve/s questions of issue/s of law alone. Thus, where an appeal against the decision of the Court below is on grounds which raise questions of mixed law and facts or facts alone, prior leave of the Court below or this Court is necessary before the appeal or grounds can be validly and competently brought in this Court. In other words, such an appeal is only competent in law if the prior leave of Court was sought for and obtained by an Appellant as a condition precedent for its validity.

The absence of the leave will constitute failure to fulfil a condition precedent to the competence of the appeal which will in turn, deprive the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over it. This position of the law has been repeatedly stated by this Court in several decisions that include Ojukwu v. Onyeador (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 203) 286, Gov., Kwara State v. Gafar (1997) 7 NWLR (pt. 511) 51, Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 229) 350, Ikeme v. Anakwe (2000) 8 NWLR (pt. 669) 484, Ajuwa v. SPDC Nig. Ltd. (2012) 11 WRN, 1 (SC) Olisa-lmegwu v. Uche Okolocha (2013) 2-3 SC (pt. 1) 72, Akinyemi v. Odu’a Invest. co. Ltd. (2012) 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 209 (SC).