Government Of Gongola State V. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C. 

This appeal is probably overtaken by events i.e. the judgment (in the appeal lodged by the Respondent herein and the cross appeal lodged by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal in the substantive appeal to it from the High Court) delivered a short while ago.

Following the decision of the Court of Appeal that:

“The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, determine and grant the relief, the Respondent claimed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Respondent’s claim either separately or in combination with the other aspects of the Respondent’s claim in other paragraphs notwithstanding the alleged violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by section 33(1) of the Constitution.”

the Respondent applied to the Court of Appeal by Notice of Motion (pursuant to section 18 Court of Appeal Act 1976 as amended) for an Order.

“Directing a stay of its Order contained in its judgment dated 21st June, 1988 between the parties, in respect of appellant’s reliefs 1 and 2 in the lower court, pending the determination of the appeal against the same to the Supreme Court and for such further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem just. ”

The grounds on which the application was based as contained in the affidavit evidence filed along with it are in the words of the Respondent:

“(1) The appeal raises substantial points of law which could be resolved either way.

(2) It is essential in the interest of justice that a stay of the Orders of this Honourable Court relating to reliefs 1 and 2 canvassed on my behalf in the lower court be granted pending the determination of the appeal aforesaid.

(3) The Respondent in this application will not be prejudiced by any such Order.

(4) The remaining part of your Lordship’s Orders contained in the judgment aforesaid not the subject of the said appeal, can be proceeded with by the lower court pending determination of the appeal herein.

(5) Unless my application be granted, it will render the appeal nugatory,”

The Court of Appeal after hearing counsel in argument granted the stay. Maidama, J. C. A., in his ruling (concurred in by Jacks and Adio, J.C.A.)

said inter alia: