AKOH & ORS. V. ABUH

• Pages: 335-359

AKOH & ORS. V. ABUH



335

5



AKOH & ORS. V. ABUH

JEREMIAH AKOH & ORS

V

10 AMEN ABUH

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BELLO,



C.J.N.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

15



NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

20



8th July, 1988

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 175/1986

Practice and Procedure - Courts - Jurisdiction - Area Courts - Stay of proceedings.

Administrative Law - Fair hearing - Likelihood of Bias.

Wards and Phrases - "at any stage of proceedings" - Meaning of - "hearing" - Meaning of.

ISSUES:

1.

What are the powers vested in the Inspector of Area Courts under section 48(1)

of the Area Courts Edict No.4 of 1968, Bunue State.

2.

What is the meaning of the phrase "at any stage of proceedings" within the context

of section 28, Area Courts Edict.

3.

What is the significance of the addition of the words "before final judgment" to

the phrase "at any stage of proceedings".

4.

What is the meaning of the word "hearing"?

5.

What is the proper test of bias.

FACTS:

The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted an action against the appellants as defend-

1.0



ants in the Ogugu Area Court Grade II, Benue State, claiming a declaration of title

to land. Both parties testified and called witnesses in their favour, and the trial judge

visited the

locus in quo.

At the conclusion of the case, the trial judge adjourned for

judgment. Before the day set for judgment, the Inspector of Area Courts collected

the records of proceedings and transferred the case to the upper Area Court, acting

1.5



in pursuance of his powers under S.48(1) of the Area Courts Edict 1968.

The respondent thereupon petitioned the Chief Registrar against the transfer.

The petition was for the attention of the Chief Inspector, High Court of justice, Ma-

kurdi. As a result of the petition, the Chief Registrar of Benue State High Court, on

the order of the Chief judge, directed the trial judge to complete the hearing of the

i0



case. Judgment was thus delivered in favour of the respondent, and the appellant

appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. The appellants thereupon

appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending

inter alia,

that the proceedings in the

High Court were a nullity as the said proceedings were tainted with likelihood of bias

on the part of Hon. Justice Puusu, who was acting Chief Registrar at the time of trans-

fer of the case.

25

30

35

336



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1988] 2 N.S.C.C.

The court of Appeal, upon consideration of the issues held that there was no merit

in the appeal, and dismissed it. The Appellants, still dissatisfied with the decision,

appealed to the Supreme Court contending

inter alia,

that the learned justices of the

Court Appeal erred in law when they held that there was no likelihood of bias, and

that the Inspector of Area Courts acted

ultra vires

when he exercised his discretion

to transfer the suit.

HELD:

1.

By virtue of section 48(1) of the Area Courts Edict 1968, "An Inspector shall have

power at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment, either on his own

motion or on the application of any party to a cause or matter before an area

court, by order to stay the hearing of any cause or matter on such terms as he

may consider just.' Thus the wording of the section makes it abundantly clear

that an Inspector of Area Courts can order the stay of the hearing or further

hearing of such cause or matter. He can also exercise such power at any stage



of proceedings, but only before the final judgment. Once an Area Court has



1

come to a final decision on a matter or cause before it, and has pronounced it's

judgment, an Inspector of Area Courts can no longer exercise his powers under

the section.

2.

Where a court is empowered to do anything at ''any stage of proceedings" it can

do the thing at any time before the delivery of it's final judgment. As long as

there is anything that remains to be done, the court may exercise the power if

the justice of the case so demanded. That is the extent of the time limit set by

the phrase.

3.

The addition of the words "before final judgment' to the phrase "at any stage of

proceedings', puts statutory emphasis on the meaning of the phrase. The power

may be exercised at any time before delivery of final judgment. It cannot be

exercised after the final judgment has been delivered.

4.

To "hear" a cause or matter means to hear and determine it. Hard Blackburn

stated the meaning and scope of to "hear" a cause or matter in these terms:

"There are various things to be done by a judge under the Act before the

hearing and preparatory to it: Orders as to evidence, orders as to at-

tendance of witnesses, notices. orders for the production of documents.

Technically those are not part of the hearing but



those things and

every other thing preliminary and antecedent to the hearing, are covered

by and are included in the authority to "hear'", which



means to hear

and finally determine, "the matter of the representation"



It is clear from the foregoing that from it's commencement up to and including

the delivery of final judgment, a case is in the process of being heard.

5.

In

whitford Residents & Rate payers Association v. Manukan City Corporation

(1964) 2 W.L.R. 340, the test of bias was put as:

"Whether there is a reasonable suspicion of bias looked at from the ob-

jective standpoint of a reasonable person and not from the subjective

standpoint of an aggrieved party."

The suspicion of bias in this case was not a reasonable one, but a fanciful one.

6.

The interest which may disqualify a judge from adjudication may be pecuniary

or for favour. The difference in essence between the two is that proof of any

pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the case, however small, on the part

of the judge, disqualifies him from adjudication. In the second class of bias, that

is, challenge for favour, there must be actual evidence upon which it can be

based. This may be as a result of a proven personal relationship of the judge to

one of the parties, or to his having previously played a role whereby he cannot

be expected to receive the evidence in the instant case. and decide the issues

with an open mind.