Inogha Mfa & Ors Vs. Mfa Inongha (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice of Cross River State, sitting at Ikom, the Respondent, as plaintiff, claimed against the appellants as defendants as follows:

“1. A declaration that he is owner and entitled to possession of the plot of land and house thereon and situate along Ikom/Calabar Road.

2. A mandatory order compelling the defendants to hand over all relevant documents in relation to plaintiff’s plot.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, servants from further interfering with right of the plaintiff to the aforesaid plot and house.”

The matter was finally determined in the Calabar Judicial Division of the Cross River State High Court by the learned trial Judge, Edem, J., before whom trial opened in the Ikom Judicial Division. In his judgment delivered on 5th March, 2002 the learned trial Judge granted the three reliefs claimed by the Respondent as plaintiff. The learned trial Judge made an award of N5,000 in favour of the respondent against the appellants as costs.

Appellants were aggrieved and on the 25th day of March, 2002 they filed a notice of appeal containing 5 (five) grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division, dismissed the appeal on 23rd November, 2004 with N10,000 costs in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants. Being dissatisfied again with the judgment against them, appellants appealed to this Court on 22/2/2005 on six (6) grounds.

In compliance with the rules and practice of this Court, learned Counsel for the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.

From his six (6) grounds of appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellants, in his brief of argument, formulated the following three issues for determination:

“1. Whether the justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the trial Judge closed the case of the defendants before proceeding to judgment. (Ground 3).

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the constitutional rights of the appellants were not breached even when the trial Judge did not formally close the defendants’ case and afford them the opportunity of presenting a final address (Grounds 4 & 5).
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in striking out five of the six grounds of appeal for alleged failure to formulate issues from the said grounds”

In his own brief of argument, learned Counsel for the Respondent adopted the three issues formulated by learned Counsel for the appellants in his brief of argument.

Arguing issue one in his brief, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the closure of a party’s case in a civil trial is a matter of fact that must be eloquently reflected in the records of the Court. He said that the Court must make a definite pronouncement to the effect that the case is closed especially when a party is in Court and unable to proceed with his case. He relied on Alsthom S.A. v. Saraki (2005) NWLR (Pt. 911) 208 at 226-228.

He said that the authority also applies to the case of a defendant especially given the fact that the defendants were also counterclaimants which made them plaintiffs. Learned Counsel referred to pages 73 to 74 of the record and said that the appellants as defendants were absent as usual and learned Counsel for the Respondent (then plaintiff) urged the Court to hold that the defendants/appellants had closed their case and to allow him (learned Counsel) to address the Court. He argued that the trial Court ignored the application of learned Counsel for the Respondent and adjourned the matter for judgment without closing the appellants’ case and giving the plaintiff’s Counsel the opportunity to address the Court.

He referred to page 76 of the record to show that his application for leave to call further evidence, close his case and deliver his final address and a motion to stay delivery of the judgment pending the determination of his motion were granted. Learned Counsel stated that on 29/1/2002, the appellants applied that the matter be sent to the State Chief Judge for reassignment to another Judge, charging the learned trial Judge with bias.

He said that the application was opposed and the learned trial Judge adjourned same to 5/3/2002 for ruling and in the ruling delivered as scheduled, the application was dismissed and the appellants called upon to continue their defence. He said that the appellants’ application for adjournment was rejected and the Court went ahead to deliver what the learned trial Judge dubbed “My Suspended Judgment”.