H. H. Muri Okokon Edet Edem Ambo & Anor V. Muri Effiong Okokon Mbukpa & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting in Calabar delivered on 21st December, 2011 dismissing the case of the Appellant.

The Appellant as claimed in the court below claimed the following in his originating Writ of Summons against the Respondents as defendants.

1. A declaration that by virtue of the decision in Suit No. C/58/53 the 1st to 4th defendants have no right to execute documents of transfer of title in land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by area of land in Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD.
2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from acting as representatives of the Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo Combined Council for the purpose of receiving compensations, land benefit, dividend of judgments in respect of land matter or any other matter relating thereto from the 4th defendant or any other government agency and other judgment debtors.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from selling, leasing, allocating, mortgaging any plot or parcel or portion of land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by Survey Plan. No. TJ/22/LD.
4. An order setting aside, canceling any document executed by the 1st to 4th defendants transferring any land belonging to the claimants in Calabar South Local Government Area or any land affected by the decision C/58/53 and covered by Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD.
5. An order restraining the 5th defendant not to accept any document of purported transfer of land executed by the 1st to 4th defendant in respect of the communal land of Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo combined council in Calabar South Local government Area.

There were several affidavits filed by the parties. Exhibits were also filed by both parties in support of their case. The parties filed their written addresses and the trial Judge delivered his considered judgment on 21st December, 2011 dismissing the claimants’ claim.

Being dissatisfied, the claimants/Appellants filed their notice and four grounds of appeal. Also filed is the Appellants brief on 7th November, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th March, 2013. The Appellants articulated one issue for determination as follows:

Whether the lower court is at liberty to grant a relief not claimed by either of the parties.

The 1st-4th Respondents filed their brief on 23rd November, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th March, 2013. The 1st – 4th Respondent adopted the only issue articulated by the Appellants. The 5th Respondent filed no brief.

On the date for hearing the Appellants adopted their brief and urged the court to allow their appeal. The 1st – 4th Respondent adopted their brief and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

The learned counsel to the Appellants submitted that at the close of arguments by both parties the trial Judge adjourned for ruling but delivered a judgment and held as follows:

“I have no reason to doubt any of these assertions. Indeed I had noted earlier in this judgment that the Muri Munene who is also the grant patriarch of Efut Nation is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. If the 1st defendant is the acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut kingdom, then it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo combined Council. And this will be in the spirit of the judgment in C/59/53”

Counsel argued that the judgment of the court is contrary to the issues and claims before the trial court for determination. The court has no power to grant a relief not sought or claimed. The duty of the court in civil cases is to render unto every one according to his proven claim See Niblett V. Akpan (2007) 38 WRN 191, Ekpenyong & Ors V. Nyong & Ors (2003) 51 WRN page 44, Adejulu Vs. Okulaja (1996) 9 NWLR pt 475 page 668, Nnaji Vs. Ede (1996) 8 NWLR pt 466 page 332.Counsel argued that by granting the Respondents a relief authorizing the Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom to endorse any document of transfer of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council amounts to granting a relief which the Respondents did not claim.

By so doing, the trial Judge committed a grave error which has also led to a miscarriage of justice. See Archibong vs. Ita (2004) 13 WRN page 1, Abioye Vs. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR pt 190 page 130, UAC (Nig) PLC Vs. Sobodu (2007) 48 WRN page 39. See also Ademola Vs. Sodipo (1990) 7 NWLR pt 253 page 251 where Ogundare JSC held thus:

“It is well settled rule that a court will not grant a relief not claimed by a party … we think that, as the relief granted by the learned trial Judge were not those sought by the parties, he went beyond his jurisdiction when he purported to grant such reliefs. It is trite law that the court is without power to award to a party that which he did not claim. This principle of law has, time and again, been stated and re-stated by this court that it seems to us that there is no longer any need to cite authorities in support of it. We take the view that this proposition of the law is not only good law, but good sense. A court of law may award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either party. It should always be borne in mind that a court of law is not a charitable institution, its duty, in civil cases is to render unto everyone according to proven claims”.

See Oscar C. F. & S Ltd vs. Ogunleye (2008) 17 WRN 167.Counsel submitted that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse.