Mohammad Dan Borno V. H.R.H. Alhaji Baffa Dambam (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Every determination by a Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal is, according to Section 294(2)-(4) read together with Section 318(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to be headed an ?opinion? or a ?decision?. The Constitution being supreme, its provisions have binding force on all authorities and persons, including appellate Court Justices throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

See Section 1(1) of the Constitution (supra). In Davies vs. Powell (1737), Willes, 46, Willes, C.J. held at page 51 that: ?When the nature of things changes, the rules of law must change too.? In Jurisprudence, 4th edition, page 197 by Diaz, the learned author concurred as follows: ?This is a truism in that the legislature and within limits, the Courts should change rules to keep the law abreast of change.?

For the above reasons I have tagged or headed this determination a ?decision? to be in conformity with the constitutional requirements.<br< p=””</br<

1

Mohammad Dan Borno, the appellant was the defendant and H.R.H. Alhaji Baffa Dambam the respondent was the plaintiff in the High Court of Justice, Borno State holden at Maiduguri. The Writ of Summons was initiated by the respondent against the appellant in the Court below on 9th January, 2013 accompanied with a statement of claim. In the course of trial, the original statement of claim was with leave of the Court amended.

The appellant filed a Statement of Defence on 30th January, 2013. With leave of the Court the Statement of Defence was also amended. The respondent filed a reply to the Amended Statement of Defence. The matter proceeded to trial. The parties relied on oral and documentary exhibits in support of their respective pleadings. At the close of the case learned Counsel submitted written addresses. The learned trial Judge A.Z. Mussa, J., rendered his decision on 27th February, 2014 and granted the reliefs claimed against the appellant.

Aggrieved by the decision the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with four grounds of appeal. The appellant filed a brief of argument on 3rd September, 2015. The appellant distilled the following issues

2

for determination:

?Whether having regards to the evidence adduced by the parties in this case more particularly that of the respondent, the trial Judge was right to have granted the reliefs sought by the respondent. (This issue is distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).?

The respondent filed a brief on 9th November, 2015. The lone issue formulated for determination by the appellant was adopted by the respondent. The parties should assume that I have read all the briefs and considered the arguments and authorities before arriving at this decision. See Order 18 Rule 3(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011.

The principal argument in the appellant?s brief is that the respondent did not adduce evidence to establish his claims in the Lower Court and was not entitled to judgment, citing Mozie vs. Mba (2006) 27 NSCQR 425 at 431. Learned Counsel took this Court through the oral and documentary evidence, citing Chief Ayogu Eze vs. Brigadier General J.O.Z. Okoloagu & Ors. (2009) LPELR-3922 and Dawodu vs. Isikalu (2011) LPELR-4488 to show that the authenticity of Exhibit ?D? was a live issue.

3