Damg Pam Vs Sale Dang Gwom (2000)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALI, J.S.C.

The plaintiff sued the defendant before the Grade 1 Area Court. Foron-Fan, Heipang, siting at Foron, Plateau State, claiming the recovery of a piece of farmland situate in Kamang. He stated his case as follows:

“I am suing the defendant claiming from him my farmland which I inherited from my father. It was my father that was doing it and the grandfather of the defendant came to my father as a friend and asked for a place to build and my father gave him a place to build and he build his house there that was how the place came into the possession of the defendant from some where. He has his own place with his ruined house in it but left to come to where his grandfather not from my father. On the authority of my father his grandfather planted some cactus trees which he got from the one already planted by my father.

After the death of his father he went to his former place and left this one and as I went there to start farming he stopped me which in the actual sense there was one given to my father by his grandfather but he refused that is why I demanded for my own given to his grandfather by my father. This dispute was taken to our elders and they directed my rather to show his farm and he showed it to them and I was there and as I wanted to take over my farmland he refused me that is why I now came to the court:”

After hearing both sides to the dispute the trial court inspected the disputed farmland. It reviewed the evidence adduced and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Plateau State Customary Court of Appeal which reviewed the evidence presented in the trial court, and allowed the appeal in favour of the defendant wherein it stated:

“It is our candid view that based on the facts of this case, the trial court entirely failed to advert its mind to the case as essentially argued by both parties, it is our candid view that if the trial court had properly directed itself to the main issue of the purported gift or loan to the defendant’s grandfather by the plaintiff’s father, it would have found as a fact that. the plaintiff failed to establish his claim. And even in the alternative argument put up by the learned counsel to the appellant on the Presumption of gift (which we do not believe) the plaintiff’s case must equally have failed. And guided by the principles in Oniah (supra) a Supreme Court decision, it is our conclusion that all the reasons, given by the court below for finding in favour of the plaintiff were founded on nothing but speculative, and created probabilities.”

Aggrieved by the Customary Court of Appeal decision, the plaintiff lodged an appeal against it in the Court of Appeal, Jos Division. He filed six (6) grounds of appeal

Learned counsel filed and exchanged briefs of argument which they adopted at the oral hearing of the appeal on 27th October, 1997; and judgment was reserved to 9th December. 1997; and on that date, the Court of Appeal (Coram: Oguntade, Edozie and Opene JJCA) in its unanimous judgment by Oguntade, JCA, considered the competence of each of the six (6) grounds of appeal and concluded:

“None of the six grounds or appeal survives. All of them are invalid. The position is that the appellant filed a notice of appeal which contained no grounds or appeal. The appeal is therefore defective and incompetent. See Anadi v. Okoli (1977) 7 SC 57 at 67. This appeal which is incompetent is therefore struck out”

The plaintiff has now further appealed to this court, Henceforth the plaintiff and the defendant shall be referred to in this judgment as the appellant and the respondent respectively.

Parties filed and exchanged briers which they adopted and expatiated during the oral hearing of the appeal in court.

Learned counsel for the respondent during the oral hearing of the appeal abandoned his preliminary objection on grounds 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal based on Section 213(3) of the 1979 Constitution and same was struck out.

In the brief filed by learned counsel for the appellant, the following 3 issues were raised for determination:

“(1) Whether or not the right of appeal under section 224 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended precluded the Honourable Court of Appeal from determining a ground of appeal that challenged the jurisdiction/competence of the Customary Court of Appeal, Jos.