Oba Jubril Bolaji Maranro V. Alhaji Salami Adebisi (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kwara State High Court of Justice sitting at Omu-Aran in its appellate jurisdiction coram: Hon. Justice Saka Yusuf (Chief Judge), Hon. Justice M.A. Akoja and Hon. Justice H.O. Ajayi delivered on the 13th day of April, 2006.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The Appellant herein as Plaintiff instituted a civil action against the Respondent at the trial Upper Area Court sitting at Omu-Aran on the 12th day of May, 1999. The claim of the Appellate which is at pages 2-3 of the Record of proceedings state as follows:

“(a) A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff and other members of Moranro family of Aho-Ogbada in Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State are the only persons entitled to Certificate of Occupancy over the land situate, lying and being at Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State covering the following towns and villages – Aho-ogbada township, Bakin, Owode, Onisapa, Afijagba, Sanni-Ode, Badwin, Laniyan, Kajola, Inaja-Maliki, Labisi and Fibike. ”

(b) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, privies or any of them from trespassing dealing with or interfering with the Plaintiff’s family right in and over the aforesaid land in any manner whatsoever having the effect of prejudicing or adversely affecting the rights of the Plaintiff in the land.”

The case went into trial. The Plaintiff (Appellant) called a total of fifteen (15) witnesses and tendered documents while the Defendant (Respondent) called seven (7) witnesses and also tendered some documents at the trial.

Both parties were duly represented by their counsel who addressed the trial court after the close of the evidence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The trial court gave judgment by dismissing the Appellant’s suit on the 13th day of April, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the High Court of Justice, Omu-Aran in its appellate jurisdiction. After the addresses of counsel, the lower court delivered its judgment on the 13th day of April, 2006 by dismissing the appeal. Also dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court the Appellant has appealed to this honourable court.

The Appellant’s counsel filed 12 grounds of appeal from which he distilled only one issue set out below as follows –

“Whether having regard to the evidence and circumstances of this case the decision of the lower court is not liable to be set aside (Grounds 1 – 12).

The Respondent’s counsel Mr. Rowland Otaru, S.A.N raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the sole issue raised for determination by the Appellant’s counsel does not in any way cover all the 12 grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant. He opined that grounds 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as contained in the notice of appeal were not covered by the sole issue and that they are deemed abandoned and the arguments thereon should not be countenanced. He cited Mobil Producing Nig. UNLTD v. Monokopo (2002) 3 NWLR Pt. 753 Pg. 60 at 77; Ojonye v. Ibrahim (2002) 1 NWLR Pt. 747 Pg. 166 at 177.

In his reply brief, the Appellant’s counsel Mr. Dayo Akinlaja argued that it is to be noted that the objection is that grounds of appeal numbers 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are incompetent. The prayer of the Respondent is that the said grounds of appeal be struck out for being incompetent. Strangely enough, the grounds for the objection do not bear relevance to the objection. Moreover, there is no submission in the arguments in support of the preliminary objection on the issue of incompetence of the grounds of appeal. The clear import of this scenario is that there is nothing to support the basis and the prayer of the preliminary objection.

I quite agree with the learned Appellant’s counsel that there is nothing in the grounds of objection or argument of the notice of objection to show that the grounds of appeal are incompetent which is the word used by the Respondent’ counsel in the prayer of motion of preliminary objection. There is a difference between incompetence of grounds of appeal and abandonment of grounds of appeal by failure to formulate issues on them. Compare the dicta of the Justices of the Court of appeal in respect of this position. In Mobil Producing Nig. UNLTD v. Monokpo (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 753) Pg. 60 at 77 the Court of Appeal held as follows: