Chief Joseph Adesina V. Prince Edward a. Adeniran & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AUGIE, J.C.A.

The 1st respondent was the plaintiff at the Ila-Orangun High Court of Osun State in an action involving a chieftaincy dispute. He filed a motion on notice on the same day he filed the writ of summons, 12th February, 1999, for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd – 4th respondents “from approving the appointment and/or installation of any person as the next Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju from any other house/family, other than the Olamodi Ruling House”, and restraining the appellant herein “from presenting any other person outside Olamodi Ruling House to the Kingmaker for consideration as the next Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju”. The application, which was opposed by the appellant and the 2nd & 3rd respondents, was granted by the lower court in its ruling delivered on the 13th of July 1999. On the 22nd of July 1999, the appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court against the ruling, and filed another application in the lower court on the 1st of February 2000 praying that the 1st respondent’s case be dismissed on the ground, –

“That it discloses no reasonable cause of action as it is frivolous, vexatious and as the plaintiff had been told by both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that he lacks the locus standi to sue”.

The application was opposed and after hearing arguments from the parties’ counsel, the lower court held in its ruling delivered on the 12th of April 2000 that the 1st respondent was “entitled to have his claim heard on its merit”, and refused the application, which he accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed another notice of appeal in this court on the 8th of May 2000.

This court granted an order of consolidation of the two appeals on the 9th of April 2002. The appellant and 1st respondent filed and exchanged briefs of argument, and in the appellants’ brief prepared by Akinwumi Adeniran, Esq., 8 issues for determination were formulated as follows –

1. Whether the High Court Judge can be said to have given the appellant fair hearing, when he conveniently omitted to avert his mind to the deductions and implications of the contents of the appellant’s affidavit in support of motion to dismiss 1st respondent’s case?
2. Whether the Osun State High Court Ila, being an inferior court to both the Honourable Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can be allowed to reverse the pronouncement of both Superior Courts on the occupation of Owa of Otan-Aiyegbaju stool, which issue both the Honourable Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have conclusively ruled upon?
3. Whether the learned trial Judge has the capacity to take the issue of counter-claim out of the context and out of the parameter of reasoning of the Supreme Court in Amusa Momoh & anor. v. Jimoh Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR 117 @ 126-127 and the decision of the Honourable Court of Appeal in Isiaka Sediu 3 Ors. v. A.-G. Lagos State & 3 Ors. (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 21) page 165.
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that he had some difficulty and anxious moments in respect of the truncated in FUTURO SPECULATIVE RIGHT of the 1st respondent? (sic)
5. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in putting a clog in the Wheel of the Machinery of the selection process of Owaship of Otan-Aiyegbaju by granting the interlocutory injunction when all the necessary parties were not before the High Court; and the 1st respondent was so informed?
6. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in injuncting a party already adjudged to have locus standi by both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
7. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in giving a hearing to a party in contempt of the Orders of both Honorable Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, when he refused to dismiss 1st respondent’s case?
8. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in denying the Olasuka Ruling House their right to the Owaship of Otan-Aiyegbaju when he in granting an injunction which restricted appellant’s selection of the next candidate for Owaship to only a candidate from Olamodi Ruling House ONLY? (sic)

The 1st respondent however argued in his brief prepared by C. J. Chukwura, Esq., that the prolix and repetitive issues raised by the appellant are predicated on erroneous and incompetent grounds of appeal, which flagrantly contravene Order 3 rules (1) – (4) & (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules as amended, therefore there are no grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal and no valid submissions can be extracted therefrom, since the two appeals are without foundation and cannot survive in law, as rules of court “have not been made for fun or to be only in the statute book”, citing Ekpan v. Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 63. It was further submitted that grounds 1 & 6 in the two notices of appeal against the two rulings do not target any error of fact or law and are therefore incompetent; that their profuse particulars are arguments/quotations from judgments and affidavits; and the appellant did not show in the so called “particulars” what way the learned trial Judge failed to direct his mind to the affidavit depositions.

The appellant however replied in his reply brief prepared by Akinwumi Adeniran Esq., that it was necessary to be prolific “in view of the precarious position and the sorry state of libraries, even among lawyers; for ease of reference, and proper documentation materials are being reproduced; and being repeated for emphasis”, and submitted that being prolific should not be an excuse for denying the appellant fair hearing, citing Obala of Otan-Aiyegbaju & Ors. v. Adesina & Anor. (1999) 2 SC 22 & 40 – 41; (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 590) 163. Furthermore, that the case of Ekpan v. Uyo (supra) showed that in spite of the strong criticism of the inadequacy of the grounds of appeal and the brief filed therein, this Court went ahead to do justice deciding the case on the merit, in consonance with Order 3 rule 2 (6) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Now, pursuant to Order 3 rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, all appeals shall be brought by a notice of appeal, which shall set forth the grounds of appeal, and by sub-rule (2) of the same rule 2 – “if the grounds of appeal allege misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated”.

The purpose of particulars in a ground of appeal is to highlight briefly when and how the error in law occurred. The particulars must be clearly stated and must be specific so as to give sufficient notice to the respondent to enable him prepare his reply brief. They also help the court in determining the errors complained of by the appellant – see Oyede v. Olusesi (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 341. A proper ground of appeal must relate to its particulars within the judgment appealed against. In other words, to support the ground of appeal, the particulars must be drawn from the reasoning in the judgment of the trial court – see Nwabueze v. Nwora (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926) 1.

Order 3 rule 2(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules further stipulates that the notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of appeal upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative- see Nwabueze v. Nwora (supra), where the court also held that the grounds of appeal should be elegantly couched with avoidance of duplicity, repetition, verbosity and prolixity, and must be cogent, concise and articulate. See also Tiza v. Begha (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.949) 616 at 646 where the Supreme Court held –

“A ground of appeal must set out concisely and distinctly the complaints of the appellant against the decision appealed against and upon which he intends to rely without any argument or narrative. And the particulars required or necessary to support the ground must be such that they point direct to the error or misdirection … complained of in the ground, without being independent complaints themselves”.

Sub-rule (4) of the same Order 3 rule 2 further stipulates that “no ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall be permitted”. A ground of appeal is vague when it is not precisely, clearly or definitely expressed or stated, as when it is couched in a manner that does not provide any explicit standard for its being understood, or when the complaint is not defined in relation to the subject, or when it is not particularized or the particulars are clearly irrelevant. The consequence is that such a ground will be struck out for being incompetent – see A. W (Nig.) Ltd. v. Supermaritime (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 922) 563; Gov., Ekiti State v. Osayomi (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 909) 67.

In this case, grounds 1 & 6 in the appellant’s notice of appeal dated 8th May, 2000, which is similar to that in the earlier notice, reads as follows –

Ground 1