LawPavilion Online


Back

HON. JUSTICE EMMANUEL D. AUDU & ORS v. MR. EZEKIEL SULE GIMBA & ANOR

(2019) LPELR-47403(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2019

CA/YL/196/2017


Before Their Lordships

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

1. HON. JUSTICE EMMANUEL D. AUDU
2. ISHAKU UMARU TUKURA
3. DAN AZUMI MAI WUYA
4. ABOKI SABO
5. DANJUMA TUKURA
6. HON. JERRY DOGON YARO
(For themselves and on behalf of Sabon-Gida Tukura Community) - Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. EZEKIEL SULE GIMBA
2. YOHANNA MUSA - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Taraba State delivered on 5th November, 2014 by E. A. Garba J. 

The Appellants and the 2nd Respondent were the Defendants at the lower Court. The 1st Respondent who was the Plaintiff before the lower Court filed a writ of summons seeking for a declaration of title over a parcel of land lying and situate at Sabon Gida Takura, Kurmi Local Government Area of Taraba State and for a declaration that the forceful acquisition of his land was unconstitutional. He also sought for the sum of Five Million Naira as general damages; and another Five Million Naira as special damages. The lower Court granted all the reliefs of the 1st Respondent excluding the general damages and perpetual injunction.

???Dissatisfied, the Appellants sought and obtained leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal against the Judgment of the High Court. 

ISSUES:
The appellants formulated the following issues:
1)Whether having regards to the mandatory provision of Order 31 of the Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2011, the proceedings and judgment of the trial Court is perverse and ought to be set aside by this honourable Court. 
2) Whether considering the state of pleadings, evidence on record and the position of the law, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and ought to be set aside by this honourable Court. 

The respondents, on the other hand, formulated the following issues:
1) Whether Order 31 of the Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2011 empowered the trial Court to proceed to pre-trial where the parties did not differ on the issues? 
2) Whether the provisions of Order 31 of the Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2011 are not procedural law that can be waived by the parties in so far as no miscarriage of justice is done to the parties? 
3) Whether having regards to the pleadings and the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the trial Court was right to have  granted the reliefs of the 1st Respondent having proved his case on preponderance of evidence? 

The Court determined the appeal on the issues formulated by the parties.

DECISION/HELD:
The Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed same.


Read Full Judgment