Jinvo Voro V. Nyara Votoh (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal arose from the Judgment delivered at the High Court of Justice of Taraba State sitting in Jalingo on the 23rd January, 2014 in Suit No.TRSJ/11/2011 by which decision the High Court granted the claims of the Plaintiff who is the Respondent before us and declared him the owner of the piece and parcel of land described in the Writ of Summons dated the 28th January, 2011 and filed on 2nd February, 2011 and the statement of claim dated the 25th February, 2011 and filed on the 28/2/2011.

It is against that Judgment of the High Court, hereinafter referred to as the Court below that this appeal was lodged vide the Notice of Appeal filed on the 8th April, 2014 containing 7 (seven) Grounds

The Original Notice of Appeal has since been amended by order of this Court to incorporate additional ground 8 in the amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed on the 2nd February, 2015 but deemed properly filed and served on the 2nd March, 2015. Briefs of argument have been filed and exchanged between counsel. At the hearing of the Appeal counsel relied on the

1

following extant briefs of argument in pursuant of this Appeal, that is:

i. Appellant amended brief of argument wherein the Appellant distilled 4 (four) issues for determination in this appeal as at pages 2 – 4 of the brief.

ii. Respondent’s amended brief of argument filed on the 5th October, 2015 but deemed properly filed by the order of Court on 20th October, 2015 in which it is incorporated, 5 (five) grounds of Preliminary Objection at paragraphs 3. 00 – 3. 01 at page 4 and arguments canvassed thereto at pages 4 -10, paragraphs 3. 02 – 3. 36.

iii. Appellant’s amended Reply to Preliminary Objection and Appellant’s Reply brief of argument filed on the 2/11/2015.

Issues formulated for determination in the Appellant’s brief of argument are at pages 2 ? 4 of the brief as follows:

1. Whether the trial Court rightly assumed jurisdiction over the suit when the Writ by which the action was initiated was incompetent and not in compliance with the relevant rules of the trial Court? Arising from Ground 7 and 8 of the amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether the trial

2

Court afforded the appellant a fair hearing in the determination of the Suit, when the Court did not allow the appellant leave to adduce evidence in proof of his defence? ? Grounds 1 and 2 of the amended Notice and ground of Appeal

3. Whether the trial Court was right to have held that the Plaintiff proved his claim to the land in dispute? ? relates to grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal
4. Whether the trial Court was right to have refused to allow the appellant to call evidence in proof of his defence, or consider the appellant?s defence? ? relates to grounds 6 of the amended Notice of Appeal.

Respondent, in his own brief of argument at page 11 adopted all the 4 (four) issues formulated by the Appellant in his brief of argument, but without prejudice to the Preliminary Objection raised by him in his brief of argument.

At the hearing of the appeal case on the 9th November, 2015 Counsel adopted their respective briefs as their argument in this Appeal. I have carefully considered those submissions made by counsel on both sides.