Mohammed Saba Bida & Anor. V. Alhaji Usman Abubakar & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SOTONYE DENTON WEST, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kwara State delivered on 29th September, 2006 by Honourable Justice J.F. Gbadeyan granting all the reliefs of the Plaintiffs/Respondents except one.

The Appellants are represented by Adewale Olatunde Esq, while the Respondents are represented by O. J Adeseko Esq. The Respondents vide their Amended Statement of Claim in paragraph 27 prayed for the following reliefs.

1. A Declaration that the 1st Plaintiff is the authentic Village Head of Bacita having been duly nominated by the Bacita kingmakers and turbaned as Village Head of Bacita on the 9th April 1998.
2. A Declaration that the purported appointment of the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant as the Village Head of Bacita is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from paragraph(sic) himself as the Village Head of Bacita or acting in any way as the Village Head.
4. AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants their agents, servants, and/or privies from disturbing the peace of Bacita in any way and from molesting the Plaintiffs in any form.
5. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from interfering in any way with appointment of the Village Head of Bacita.
6. A claim of N1million (N1,000,000.00) as general damages for trespass, physical and psychological agony which the Defendants acting have caused the Plaintiffs.
7. A claim of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) against the Defendant jointly or severally as special damages for the destruction of the f Plaintiff house and a sum of N250,000.00 and other proves taken from the 1st Plaintiff’s house by the Defendants and their agents.

The Appellants/Defendants filed a statement of Defence praying the trial court to dismiss the Respondents/Plaintiffs claim.

The learned trial judge in his judgment granted reliefs 1,2,3,4 and 5 and awarded N250,000 as general damages.

The Appellants not been satisfied with the judgment, filed Notice and olds of Appeal, praying this court to allow their appeal and dismiss the respondents’ case.

Upon the record of Appeal being transmitted to this court, parties their respective briefs in line with the rules of court. In the brief settled Adewale Olatunde Esq, on behalf of the Appellants six issues were formulated from the nine Grounds of Appeal filed by him which are herein under reproduced.

1. The learned trial judge erred in law in not considering the effect of the ruling (exhibit D1) wherein the court of competent jurisdiction held 1st respondent has not teen duly appointed viliage Head of Bacita
2. We learned trial judge erred in law in granting the reliefs 1-5 as contained in the judgment of the learned trial judge having regard to Exhibit D1 wherein a court of competent prison as ruled that the 1st claimant has not been appointed the village head, Bacita.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that there are kingmakers involved in the selection of a village head for Bacita while in the face of Exhibit D3 the claimant are estopped from asserting the existence of kingmakers.
4. The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to adequately consider the case of the 1st Defendant regarding his relationship/link with late Etsuyankpa Zubair, the late village head Bacita, the said failure thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in law (the error which occasions miscarriage of justice) when he failed to consider the divergent stands of the claimants’ case on the kingmakers as the claimants reprobated and approbated in the same case.
6. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held:

“However, considering the totality of the evidence, the physical claimants’ having are awarded the sum of N250,000.00 as general damages”

When the learned trial judge did not judicially exercise the discretion to award damages but based same on wrong and erroneous principles.

7. The learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he held,

“The plethoral of evidence show that there was disturbing influence by outsiders in affairs of Bacita leading to break down of law and order and damages to property as borne out by the several petitions from the community to the authorities and the police.

8. The learned trial judge erred in law by using/relying heavily on Exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 5 which are inadmissible in law when he held:

“The plethoral of evidence … By several petitions from the community to the authorities and the police.”

9. The trial court’s judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and against the weight of evidence.

The following were the six issues deducted from the Grounds of Appeal.

1. Whether the learned trial adequately considered Exhibit D1, its effect aid the issue raised thereon in the Appellant’s address and whether the non consideration of same has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.
2. Whether having regard to the inconsistent position of the Respondents (and their privy) on the existence or otherwise of kingmakers in the appointment of village head of Baota it was correct or proper for the learned trial judge to have held that there are kingmakers in the appointment of Estu Yankpa/village head of Bacita.
3. Whether having regard to the State of pleadings and evidence led the failure of the learned trial judge to adequately consider the relationship of the 1st Appellant with Estu Yankpa Zubair for his entitlement to the throne did not occasion a miscarriage of justice to the 1st Appellant.
4. Whether having regard to the quality of evidence before the lower court, there was credible or admissible evidence to justify the award of damages jointly or severally in favour of the Respondents.
5. Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong on the purported external influence to justify his decision and whether same has not occasion (sic) a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants.
6. Whether the learned trial judge adequately and sufficiently weighed the totality of the evidence (oral and documentary) before finding for the Respondents and whether the finding is nor (sic) perverse.

The Respondents Counsel OJ. Adeseko Esq., in the Respondents brief of argument which was deemed properly filed served was granted by this court on 25/05/09, in which a preliminary objection which is contained on page 1-7 of the brief was raised. He however in the alternative formulated three issues which he felt are germane to the determination of the Appeal which are also reproduced here under.

ISSUEs NO 1.