Ntoe Andrew O. Ansa & Ors V. United Africa Co. PLC & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Cross River State, sitting at Calabar in Suit No. HC/452/2006, delivered on the 11/5/2010 by which the Appellants’ case against the Respondents, was dismissed. The Appellants had sued the Respondents before the High Court for damages for trespass and injunction in respect of Kasuk land.

At the trial, only the Appellant called a sole witness in support of the claims and at the end of trial, the High Court entered the aforementioned judgment.

Being aggrieved with the dismissal of their case, the Appellants brought this appeal vide a notice of appeal dated 17th but filed on the 21/7/2010, which was amended with leave of the court. The amended notice of appeal was filed on the 29/7/2011 but deemed on the 14/01/2013.

In the Appellants’ brief, settled by Chief Orok I. Ironbar, of counsel filed on the 17/10/2013, the following issues were submitted for decision in the appeal:-

“B1. Whether in the absence of the judgment in C/88/76 and the linking of the land in dispute to the land in that suit, the lower court was justified to dismiss the Appellants’ claims. (This issue the Appellants believe is supported by Grounds 1, 2 and 4, of the amended notice of appeal)

B2. Whether the lower court, with respect, did not misunderstand the case put forward by the Appellants leading to its suo motu scrutinizing exhibits to produce evidence not produced by the Respondents. (This ground is supported by ground 3 of the amended notice of appeal.)”

The Respondents’ brief was settled by C. O. Bassey, Esq., counsel for the Respondents, and was filed on the 28/2/2013, but deemed on the 16/1/14. Like the Appellants’ learned counsel, Bassey also raised two (2) issues which are said to arise for determination in the appeal. They are in the following terms:-

“1. Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the filing of the suit in the High Court against the defendants did not amount to an abused in the face of the pending appeal at the Supreme Court in suit No. C/88/76 in respect of the same land? ”

An Appellants’ Reply brief was filed on the 21/01/14 to complete the settlement of briefs in the appeal.

The learned counsel for the Appellants has raised an objection to the 2nd Issue formulated in the Respondents’ brief on the ground that it did not arise from any of the Appellants’ four (4) grounds of the appeal and so incompetent, relying on Okpala v Iheme (1989) 2 NWLR (109) 208.

Looking calmly at the Appellants’ grounds of appeal, the issues formulated by the learned counsel for the Appellants are more precise on the complaints against the judgment by the High Court and so germane for decision in the appeal.

My intention is to consider and determine the appeal on the basis of those issues which accurately and clearly represented the real grievances of the Appellants against the judgment by the High Court. This position has adequately answered and taken care of the objection by the learned counsel for the Appellants to the Respondents’ Issue 2.

I would now proceed to consider the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties on the Appellants Issues. Both counsel argued their two (2) issues together.