Ben Agwuegbo V. Sam Dan Kagoma (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

: This appeal is against the judgment of Abiriyi, J. of the Kaduna State High Court of Justice, Kaduna delivered on 25/11/96 granting an order of certiorari quashing the judgment of the Kaduna State Rent Tribunal No.2 of 27/8/96. The appellant as the plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal dragged the respondent as the defendant to recover a rented premises known as No. 1 Old Market Road, Barnawa, Kaduna and arrears of rent. At the end of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, the respondent was ordered to vacate the rented premises and pay arrears of rent. In addition, the Rent Tribunal without any relief claimed before it by the appellant as the plaintiff, also suo motu made the following order convicting and sentencing the respondent for an offence punishable under section 20(2) of the Rent Control and the Recovery of Premises (Amendment) Edict, 1996. The order at page 8 of the record reads:-

“The Tribunal will not close its eyes to the attitude and behaviour of the defendant who deliberately and intentionally harassed and annoyed the Landlord by deceiving him to occupy a room and later reporting him to the police for alleged trespass as a result of which the plaintiff was arrested. This the defendant clearly stated in his testimony. By so doing this Tribunal finds it necessary to invoke the provisions of section 20(2) of the Rent Control and the Recovery of Premises (Amendment) Edict of 1996 and it is accordingly ordered that the defendant is guilty of an offence of harassing and annoying his Landlord and is accordingly convicted under the above cited section and he is accordingly (sic) sentenced to fine of N1,000 or 1 month imprisonment in lieu of fine.”

Aggrieved with this decision, the respondent after paying the fine, with the leave of the Kaduna High Court initiated certiorari proceedings before that court for the purpose of quashing the decision of the Rent Tribunal on grounds among others that he was denied fair hearing in that he was convicted, sentenced to fine or imprisonment without being charged, tried or given the chance to defend himself. The High Court after hearing the application granted the order of certiorari as prayed and quashed the entire proceedings and judgment of the Rent tribunal containing the conviction and sentence passed on the respondent. In addition, the High Court also awarded the sum of N50,000.00 damages to the respondent against the appellant for the embarrassment, trauma and ridicule suffered by the respondent as the result of the wrongful conviction and sentence. It is against that judgment which was delivered on 23/11/96 that the appellant has now appealed to this court. In line with the requirements of the rules of this court, briefs of argument were duly filed and served on behalf of the appellant and the respondent by their respective learned counsel. In the appellant’s brief, the following 5 issues were identified for the determination of the appeal:-

“(a) Whether the High Court still has jurisdiction to quash the proceedings of the Rent Tribunal in view of the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises (Amendment) Edict No.4 of 1996.

In the alternative whether it was proper to go by way of judicial review instead of an appeal when the very remedy sought for were clearly stated to be available on appeal and there was no manifest error on the face of the record.

(b) What is the proper mode of instituting a case of the Kaduna State Rent Tribunal i.e. Are parties expected to file pleadings at the tribunal?

(c) Whether by the provision of section 7 of the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Edict No.4 of 1996 of Kaduna State, a trial thereunder violates or complies with section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kaduna State and whether a Rent Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try an offence created by the said section.

(d) Whether it is proper for a court to speculate and rationalise in the absence of necessary evidence to support same or to give judgment/ruling based on the evidence available.

(e) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding the sum of N50,000.00 when same was not proved against the 1st appellant”.

In the respondent’s brief which contains a preliminary objection to the appeal, 4 Issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal. The issues are:-

“(i) Whether the Rent Tribunal Kaduna State has been conferred with criminal jurisdiction by Kaduna State Edict No.4 of 1996; and if its has, whether the Criminal Procedure Code and the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) are applicable.

(ii) Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to listen to and determine the certiorari proceedings filed before it by the respondent.

(iii) Whether the High Court rightly found that there was no application before the Tribunal written by the appellant as required by section 8 (1) of the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law Cap. 132, Laws of Kaduna State, 1991.