Christopher Ogidi & Ors V. Muobike Okoli & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the 20-3-2000, the High Court of Anambra State struck out consolidated suit Nos. AA/6/75 and AA/19/76 on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to lands in non-urban areas of the State.

By a motion on notice dated and filed on 7-3-2006, the defendants (now respondents herein) applied for an order granting leave to the Registrar of the trial court to relist the case which was struck out on 20-3-2000 for lack of jurisdiction.

Following the addresses of Learned counsel on both sides the trial court on the 29-10-2007 rendered its ruling granting the application and granting leave to its Registrar to relist the case. Dissatisfied with this ruling of the trial court, the plaintiffs in the consolidated suits who were respondents to the application to relist on 12-11-2007, commenced this appeal No. CA/E/201/2008 by filing a notice of appeal containing one ground of appeal as follows- “The learned trial judge erred in law when she relisted the case which was struck out for want of jurisdiction and thereby constituted herself an appellate judge over the decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. The reason given in the order striking out the case by Okoli J., was that the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the subject matter of the case.
2. Where a High court bases its decision on want of jurisdiction, it is wrong for the same High court in the same matter to rule that it had jurisdiction no matter the reason.
3. At the time the order-striking out the case was made the state of the law sustained the order of the learned trial judge who made it.
4. Alteration of the state of the law does not automatically obliterate the decisions taken under the previous dispensation.
5. The respondents had ample remedy other than urging the High court to abuse process by sitting on appeal over its own decision.”

Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs of argument.

The appellants’ brief of argument raised only one issue for determination as follows- “Whether the learned trial judge was wrong in ordering a relisting of the suit which was struck out for want of jurisdiction by a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.”

The Respondents’ brief of argument also raised one issue for determination as follows- “Having regard to the sole ground of appeal, the respondents submit that the proper issue arising from the ground is whether having in mind that the order striking out the suit was based on decision of court now held to have been given per incuriam, the Learned trial judge was right in relisting the case so struck out.”

I will determine this appeal on the basis of the issue for determination in the appellants’ brief of argument. The Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants argued

1. that the decision of the trial court relisting the said suits will mean that all determinations of court while the decision in OYEDIRAN v. EGBETOLA (supra) prevailed, even if final judgments had been written, will be ignored or set aside by the very courts that rendered such judgments, and not on appeal to the appellate court. This is not a matter that should be domesticated or rationalized.

Nor is it a matter in which a short cut will be employed under the cloak of doing justice. Indeed in this case in which the Respondents allowed a period of over 6 (six) years to elapse since the decision in ADISA (supra), it is a matter which must be given serious consideration for clearly the parties had altered their position.

This is the very essence of the doctrine of implied necessity which is founded in the maxim Necessitias facit licitum quod alias non est licitum-meaning –

Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is not lawful. Thus the decision of Okoli J. (as he then was) could not have been a void act, since there was a decision of the Supreme Court on which it was firmly based. It may well be a wrong decision with the subsequent alteration of the dispensation at the time when his decision was given, but the competent authority to declare it so is the matter now before the court. There is a world of difference between a void judgment and one which is wrong in law.

2. The trial Court on 20-3-2000 did not just strike out the matter. It made specific findings before the ultimate order striking out the matter. It determined that Igboukwu where the suit land is situate is not an urban area of the State, that it had no jurisdiction on matters relating to lands in the non urban area of the state and that therefore it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the suit.
3. That the decision by the High Court that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a case cannot be overruled by the same High court and that it is only the Court of Appeal upon an appeal, that can correct the error in such decision.

According to the Learned SAN it is not a matter of doing justice or whether or not the court of Appeal will arrive at the decision that the High court was wrong in declining jurisdiction.

4. That the circumstances in which a High Court can set aside its own decision include when the judgment is obtained by fraud, when it is a nullity or when it is obvious that the court was misled into giving a consent judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented thereto and where the judgment was given without jurisdiction; and that non of these circumstances apply to the decision of 20-3-2000.
5. That the trial court decision was based on the law as it was prevailing at the time and that since the law that applies to a given transaction is the one then prevailing it will be wrong to regard that decision a nullify because the law has now changed. According to him. The relevant fact is not whether the decision of C. J. Okoli J., (as he then was) was right or wrong at the time the application to relist was made, but whether at the time of rendition of the decision, it was validly made having regard to the State of the law. If this is accepted, as indeed it should be, then the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court which altered the existing order will not have the effect of nullifying the decision validly made. It will have the effect of rendering the decision wrong in law, capable of being corrected on appeal, but not voided.

To maintain that the decision which was made on an issue of law was void, meant that no decision was at all rendered by C. J. Okoli J., (as he then was).