Kenor Madina Tal & Ors V. Abdullahi Shuaibu Anampara & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Gombe State High Court in Suit No: GM/43/2012: Kenor Madina Tal & Ors. V. Abdullahi Shuaibu Anampara & Ors delivered on 19/11/2014 by M. A. Pindiga J, in which the claims of the Appellants as Plaintiffs against the Respondents as Defendants were dismissed.

?The Appellants were dissatisfied with the said judgment and had promptly appealed against the said judgment to this Court vide a Notice of appeal filed on 17/12/2014 on five grounds. However, subsequently, the Appellant sought and obtained the leave of the Court and filed its amended Noticed of Appeal on five grounds on 11/6/2015 but deemed properly filed on 27/10/2015. The Record of Appeal was transmitted on 5/5/2015 but deemed duly transmitted on 27/10/2015. The Appellant?s brief was filed on 20/1/2016 but deemed properly filed on 2/2/2016. The 1st ? 3rd Respondents? brief was duly filed on 29/2/2016. The 4th ? 5th Respondents? brief was filed on 3/5/2016 but deemed properly filed on 4/5/2016. The Appellant?s reply

1

brief was filed on 4/4/2016 but deemed properly filed on 12/4/2016. The 1st ? 3rd Respondents filed on 29/2/2016 a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the Appellants? suit before the Court below. See pages 245 ? 264 of the Record of Appeal for the judgment and pages 265 ? 269 for the original Notice of Appeal.

At the hearing of the Appeal on 4/5/2016 P. A. Aki Esq, learned senior counsel to the Appellants adopted the Appellant?s brief and Appellant?s reply brief as their argument in support of the appeal and in opposition to the preliminary objection of the 1st ? 3rd Respondents and urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection for lacking in merit and totally being misconceived and to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of the Court below and to grant the reliefs sought by the Appellants as Plaintiffs against the Respondents as Defendants as per their claims before the Court below.

?On his part, Michael Oforma Esq, learned counsel holding the brief of Chief Caleb Ubale, learned senior counsel to the 1st ? 3rd Respondents adopted their Respondent?s brief

2

as their argument in support of their preliminary objection and in opposition to the appeal and urged the Court to strike out both the suit and appeal of the Appellants for being incompetent and or to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and to affirm the judgment of the Court below. On his part, Musa Saidu Esq, learned Director of Civil Litigation, Ministry of Justice, Gombe State for the 4th ? 5th Respondents adopted their Respondents? brief as their argument in opposition to the appeal and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and to affirm the judgment of the Court below.

By way of oral reply on points of law to the 4th ? 5th Respondents? brief, learned senior counsel to the Appellants submitted that the 4th ? 5th Respondents? brief was incompetent in that the only issue distilled therein for determination was not tied to any of the five grounds of appeal and should therefore be discountenanced and struck out. In further oral reply, learned Director of Civil Litigation for the 4th ? 5th Respondents conceded that the sole issue in the 4th ? 5th Respondents? brief was not tied

3

to any of the grounds of appeal but contended that it was still valid and properly before the Court in this appeal and should be considered by the Court in the determination of the appeal in the interest of justice.

By a writ of summons filed on 26/3/2012 and by a Statement of Claim filed on 27/3/2012, the Appellants as Plaintiffs before the Court below instituted an action against the Respondents as Defendants claiming several reliefs including a declaration that the purported appointment of the 1st Respondent as District Head of Tal made contrary to the custom and tradition of Tal people by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents is unlawful, null, void and of no effect.

The parties duly field and exchanged pleadings together with the written statements on oath of their respective witnesses and documents they each intend to rely on at the trial of the suit. At the trial, the Appellants as Plaintiffs called six witnesses and tendered some documents admitted in evidence as exhibits A, B, C, D, D1, E and F before the Court below and closed their case on 29/10/2013. In their defence, the 1st ? 3rd Respondents as 1st ? 3rd Defendants called four