Chief Nelson Ogbuji &ors v. Eze Young Ogbonna & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal No. SC/750/2013 was commenced on 29-8-2013 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 27-6-2013 in appeal No. CA/PH/521/2007 setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Abia State at Obehie in Ukwa Judicial Division delivered on 15-6-2006 holding that the plaintiffs (appellants herein) proved their case and granting them all the reliefs in their statement of claim with the leave of this court. The notice of this appeal was amended.

The parties herein have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – amended appellant’s brief, 1st respondent’s brief, amended 2nd respondent’s brief, 3rd respondent’s brief.

The amended appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination –

1. Whether the Abia State Government can validly issue exhibit “A” in view of the constitutional and statutory demarcation of Legislative and Executive functions in Nigeria.
2. Whether exhibits D-G were agreements within the frame work of the law.
3. Whether the court can take judicial notice of a white paper and whether the white paper was properly proved.

The 1st respondent adopted and argued the issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief after raising and arguing a preliminary objection against issue No. 1.

The amended 2nd respondent’s brief also adopted and argued the issues raised for determination in the amended appellants’ brief.

The 3rd respondent’s brief raised no issue for determination. The arguments therein are directly based on the grounds of appeal. A brief of argument in an appeal must state the issues raised from the grounds of appeal for determination in the appeal. The established case law is that arguments in the brief are based on the issues raised for determination from grounds of appeal and not directly on the grounds themselves. See for example Engineering Enterprises v. A-G Kaduna State (1987) 2 NWLR 1.

For the above reasons, I hold that, the 3rd respondent’s brief is incompetent and is hereby struck out.

Concerning the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection to the first issue raised for determination in the appellants’ brief, I agree that the objection is correctly founded.

The document admitted as exhibit A in the evidence at the trial nisi prius is a letter written to the appellants’ Traditional Ruler, Eze Mathew Nwamuo by Rabiye Construction Engineering Company Limited, sub-Contractor to Shell Petroleum Development Co. Ltd.

This document was tendered through PW1, Chief Paul Uju Okorie. It was not issued by the Abia State Government. It is obvious that the appellant referred to exhibit A in that issue in error. As it is, the issue is factually incongruous and unarguable and therefore incompetent. It is hereby struck out.

Let me now determine issue No. 2 which asks-

“Whether exhibits D-G were agreements within the frame work of the law.”

I have carefully read and considered the arguments in all the briefs on this issue.