M.Y. Suleiman & Ors v. Justice Shittu Ankuma & Ors (2025)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kaduna State High Court sitting at Kafanchan delivered by Hon. Justice Luka Aba in suit No. KDH/KAF/32M/2017, on the 14th day of June, 2018, wherein the trial court dismissed the appellant’s motion for judicial review by way of certiorari, for lacking in merit.

The 1st appellant was the sole applicant at the trial High Court, the 2nd appellant was brought in to substitute for his late father at some point during the proceedings at High Court, while the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents herein were the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents respectively at the trial High Court.

The appellants being aggrieved with the decision of the trial court had appealed against same to this court vide a joint notice of appeal dated the 2nd day of August, 2018, challenging the decision of the trial court on six grounds. See pages 132 – 136 of the record.

The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this court on the 4th of October, 2018. The appellants’ joint brief of argument was dated 25th of November, 2024 filed the same date by order of court for same to be refilled. The 1st respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 28th of November, 2024.

The appellants upon receipt of the 1st respondent’s brief, filed a joint reply brief on the 2nd of December, 2024. The 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents did not file any process in this appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal, counsel to appellants and the 1st respondent adopted their briefs of argument, and this court reserved the appeal for judgment.

This appeal was commenced at the trial court by the 1st appellant who was applicant vide an application for judicial review for the orders of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the right to fair hearing of the appellants was violated by the Customary Court in granting the motion for execution in favour of the 1st respondent.

The application for judicial review was brought pursuant to order 37 rules 1 and 2 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007, and same seeks as follows:

1. A declaration that the ruling of the Upper Customary Court, Kwoi presided over by the second and fourth respondents and delivered on the 21st day of March, 2017 violated the applicant’s right to fair hearing enshrined in section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria when the court denied the applicant the right to reply to the motion on notice moved on the that date and in the application of Shittu Ankuma Dib/ and M. Y. Suleiman in annexure ‘A’.
2. That the quoram of the Upper Customary Court Kwoi in its sitting of the 21st day of March, 2017, was such that amounted to a violation of fair hearing the member and fourth respondent being of the same family with the first respondent herein and the applicant in the proceedings of 21st day of March, 2017.
3. An order of the court removing to the court the entire proceedings and ruling of the Upper Customary Court, Kwoi delivered on the 21st day of March, 2017, in the matter of Hassan Dibi and M.Y Suleiman v. Shittu Ankuma for the purpose of being quashed.
4. An order quashing the proceedings and ruling of the Upper Customary Court, Kwoi delivered on the 21st day of March, 2017 in the matter of Hassan Dibi and M.Y. Suleiman v. Shittu Ankuma.

The trial court upon hearing the motion for judicial review dismissed same by her judgment found at pages 125 to 131 of the record before this court, and it is on this premise that this appeal was lodged.

Brief statement of facts

The 1st respondent herein was a beneficiary of a judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, which was affirmed by this court by way of judgment in appeal No. CA/K/137/2010. When the 1st respondent sought to execute the judgment against the appellants by way of motion, the appellants failed to file any process in response to the motion for execution and after some adjournment the court granted the 1st respondent leave to argue the motion for execution for which the appellants prayed to respond orally on point of law.

When the motion was moved, the appellants rather asked for an adjournment to respond to the argument made, and the court refused the adjournment and granted the 1st respondent leave to execute the judgment. On that premise, the appellants filed this application for writ of certiorari for the proceedings to be brought before the lower High Court to be quashed for want of fair hearing.

The lower High Court heard the application for certiorari and dismissed same for lacking in merit, hence this appeal. See the judgment of the court at pages 125 – 131 of the record.