Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Akoh & Ors V. Abuh (1988) CLR 7(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 8th 1988

Brief

  • Practice & Procedure
  • Area Courts jurisdiction
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Likelihood of bias

Facts

The proceedings leading to this appeal were instituted in Suit No.6/84 by the respondent therein, as plaintiff, against the appellants, at the Ogugu Area Court Grade II, Benue State on the 3rd day of January, 1984. In that Court the respondent’s claim was for a declaration of title to a parcel of land.

At the trial the respondent gave evidence and called three witnesses in support of his claim. All the appellants testified and they all called witnesses who gave evidence in support of their claim. The court at the invitation of the plaintiff visited the locus in quo. At the conclusion of the hearing on the 29th February, 1984, the trial court adjourned the case to 15th March, 1984 for judgment. However on the 13th day of March, 1984, the Inspector of Area Courts, Ankpa, went to the Area Court and collected the Court’s Record Book containing the judgment which was to be delivered on the 15th March, 1984. He subsequently ordered a stay of proceedings and a transfer of the case to the Upper Area Court, Ayangbe, acting in pursuance of his powers under s. 48(1) of the Area Court Edict 1968.

The respondent was not happy with the Inspector’s order of transfer and consequently wrote petitions to the Chief Registrar against it. These petitions are Exhibits A, B, C, and D in this appeal. It should, however, be noted that each of these petitions was addressed to the “The Chief Registrar, Judicial Department, Makurdi and clearly marked:

  • “For the attention of
  • The Chief Inspector,
  • Inspectorate Section,
  • High Court of Justice,
  • Makurdi.”

    • As a result of the petitions, the Chief Registrar of the Benue State High Court, on the order of the Chief Judge of the State, addressed a letter dated 11/5/84 and signed by one Idachaba, to the Judge of the Ogugu Area Court directing the trial court to complete the hearing of the case. That letter is Exh. ‘E’ and it reads as follows:

    • “SCR/231/vol. 1/112
    • The 11th May 1984.
    • The Judge,
    • Area Court Grade II,
    • Ogugu.

      • Directives – Re – Ameh Abu CV/6/84 Vs Jeremiah Akoh and 2 Ors

      Reference to my letter No. SCR/231/vol. 1/62 of March, 1984, I have been directed by the Hon. Chief Judge to instruct you as follows having gone through proceedings in respect of the above case.

      • Your court is hereby instructed to issue hearing notices to the parties and come to judgment, since it has completed its Judicial functions and any dissatisfied party may appeal. Comply strictly and communicate us at the Headquarters that you have so complied.
      • Sgd.)
      • (P.S.DACHABA)
      • FOR: Chief Registrar.

        • A copy of Exh. E was sent to the Inspector of Area Courts, Inspectorate Office, Ankpa as well as to the Judge of the Upper Area Court, Ayangba.

        In compliance with the directive contained in Exh. E the trial Area Court Summoned the parties to Court and delivered its judgment on the 25th May, 1984, awarding the land in dispute to the respondent.

        The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Area Court and so appealed to the High Court, and that Court (Coram A.I.K Alu and T.U.F. Puusu), having carefully examined the appellant’s complaints, came to the conclusion that the trial Area Court was right in its decision and so dismissed, in its entirety, their appeal on the 15th day of May, 1985.

        Still dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division. In that Court, there were two main complaints. The first was that the Chief Registrar’s letter Exh.E which was signed by one Mr. P.S. Idachaba remitting the case back to the trial Area Court for completion, was invalid and therefore all subsequent proceedings in the Area Court were null and void. Their second complaint was that the proceedings in the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction were a nullity as the said proceedings were tainted with likelihood of bias on the part of Hon. Justice U. T. Puusu as he was the Ag. Chief Registrar of the High Court at the time that the respondent addressed Exhibits A, B, C, and D to his office.

        The Court of Appeal, having given very careful consideration to both parties’ submissions on these tow points, came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the appellants’ appeal which was dismissed.

        The appellants, still dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Ogugu Area Court Gd. II had jurisdiction on 25/5/84 when...
    • Read More