PA A.K.Y. Balogun & 3 Ors V Alhaja Shifawu Ode & 2 Ors (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C 

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (hereinafter called “the Court below”), delivered on 8th July, 1999 allowing the appeal of the 1st set of respondents and setting aside the ruling of Hunponu-Wusu, J., of the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Division delivered on 17th January, 1997 holding that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit brought by the appellants and therefore, struck out the motion on notice brought by the 1st set of respondents asking it to decline jurisdiction to entertain the said suit.

Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellants have appealed to this court on seven (7) grounds of appeal. The parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. In the amended brief of the appellants, they have formulated five (5) issues not seven (7) as stated in the 5th respondent’s brief for determination, namely:

“2.01 Issue No. I

Whether or not the appellants’ suit before the High Court constitutes an abuse of court process.

2.02 Issue No. II

Whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appellants’ claim having regard to the powers of the High Court as enshrined in sections 36 and 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution (i.e. sections 33 and 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution) notwithstanding the fact that a Tribunal had looked into the matter and had made a recommendation thereon.

2.03 Issue No. III

Whether or not there was a decision or judgment by a Tribunal of Enquiry and whether or not such a decision or judgment (if any) could strip the High Court of its jurisdiction under section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution or limit or restrict the jurisdiction.

2.04 Issue No. IV

Whether or not the Court of Appeal could consider extraneous matters not placed before the High Court and make a decision based on such extraneous matters.

2.05 Issue No. V

Whether or not the decision in Hanson v. Radcliffe U.D.C. (1922) 2 Ch. 490 at 507 is applicable to the facts of this case.”

The 1st to 3rd respondents in their brief, have formulated three (3) issues for determination, namely: