Oweifa Dorkubo & Ors V. Idongesit T. Udoh (Mrs.) & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Eket Division, delivered by Honourable Justice Theresa I. Obot, J., on November 6, 2013 dismissing the committal proceedings brought against the 1st Respondent by the Appellant.

The facts of the matter leading to the instant appeal are as follows: On 13/12/2011, E. A. Ebienye, J. of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State had ordered, inter alia, the 2nd Respondent to pay to the Appellants the sum of N86,231,367.55 as at 30/3/2011 and 10% interest from 1/4/2011 until liquidated. The Appellants commenced contempt proceedings when the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the said order. In dismissing the application, the learned trial Judge found, inter alia, that:

The Respondent has shown that the money the Court is being moved to find her in contempt for not paying as ordered by the Court on December 13th 2011 was indeed the same money that was paid into an interest yielding account on the 17th day of May, 2010.

Dissatisfied by this decision, the Appellants lodged this appeal by Notice of Appeal filed

1

on January 8, 2014, upon four grounds.

The parties exchanged Briefs of Argument, including the Appellants’ Reply Brief which were respectively adopted on 21/4/2016. F. O. Okeri, Esq. adopted the Appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief settled by E. B. Ukiri, Esq., while the Respondents’ Brief was adopted by Orok O. Ironbar, Esq.

The Respondents in their Brief had raised two grounds of objection. In ground 1, learned Counsel for the Respondent called the attention of the Court to documents included at pages 70 – 71 of the Record of Appeal, which were not part of the proceedings before the trial Court, and a document annexed as Annexure 1 in the Appellants’ Brief. The Court was urged to discountenance these documents.

In ground 2, the Respondents contended that the 1st issue distilled for determination by the Appellants was overreaching. That it was not borne out by the record and not covered by a valid ground of appeal, and ought to be struck out. The Respondents further contended that ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal did not arise from the proceedings on appeal. Reliance was placed on Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mohammed (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1413)

2

551 at 588. In the Reply Brief, the Appellants first attacked the Notice of Objection of the Respondents as contravening the provisions of Order 10 of the Rules of this Court and therefore incompetent, and urged the Court to discountenance the said objection. On the merits of the said objection, the Appellants submitted that the documents, which are certified copies of unreported decisions of this Court in respect of appeals against the decision of Ebienye, J., are relevant and that the grounds of appeal specifically referred to them. It was further contended that Issue No. 1 was distilled from grounds 1 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal and not overreaching.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that there was nothing objectionable in the inclusion of certified true copies of unreported decisions of the Courts which are relevant to the argument proffered by the Appellant. That they simplify matters and make research easier. It was argued that the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mohammed (supra) was inapplicable. Learned Counsel also submitted that grounds 1 and 2 of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal challenge the ratio decidendi of the

3