OREDOYIN & ORS. V. AROWOLO & ORS.
| Pages | 64-96 |
64
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1989] 3 N.S.C.C.
OREDOYIN & ORS. V. AROWOLO & ORS.
5
1.
LAWRENCE ADEBOLA OREDOYIN
2.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
3.
JOHNSON KALEJAIYE OKELARIN
10
V
1.
CHIEF AKALA AROWOLO
2.
CHIEF SALAWU SHODERU
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS
3.
CHIEF BAKARE OKOBALE
SUIT NO. SC 68/1988
15
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ESO,
J.S.C.
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
KARI BI-WHYTE ,
J.S.C.
OPUTA,
J.S.C.
20
CRAIG,
J.S.C.
11th July, 1989
Chieftaincy Matters - Appointment of Chief - Consultation with Oracle - Chieftaincy
Declaration - Conflicts between - How resolved.
25
Practice and Procedure - Locus standi - Appeals - Grounds ofAppeal - Leave to substitute
new grounds - Lack of objection thereto - Effect of - Appeals - New points - Leave to
raise - Discretion of court to grant - Guiding Principles - Limit of
30
Words and Phrases - Judgment and Decision - Meaning of.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether an appellate court can grant leave to substitute new grounds of appeal
which will make the case opposed to the one put up in the trial court.
35
2.
Whether an appellate court can consider a case which is the opposite of either
party's case at first instance.
3.
Whether parties to an action can, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a court.
4.
Whether the issue of
locus standi
can be raised for the first time in an appellate
court.
40
5.
Under what circumstances will an appellate court allow new points to be raised
on appeal.
6.
What is the object of pleadings?
7.
What is an "appeal"?
8.
What is "Judgment" as compared to "decision" of a court.
45
FACTS:
The Plaintiffs/Respondents brought an action at the High Court against the
Defendants/Appellants challenging the appointment of the 1st defendant as the
Ramodu of Imota. The 1st defendant was selected out of three candidates, whose
names were forwarded to the kingmakers for consideration. His appointment was
50
subsequently approved by the Lagos State Government.
The Plaintiffs' argument was that the appointment of the 1st defendant was
unlawful for an alleged non-compliance with the Native Law and Custom of Imota
as governed by the consultation of Ifa Oracle. The 1st and 3rd defendants pleaded
that the applicable native law and custom is embodied in Ramodu of Imota Chief-
taincy Declaration 1957, which has no provision for consultation of Ifa Oracle.
OREDOYIN & ORS. V. AROWOLO & ORS.
65
The learned trial judge dismissed the suit in its entirety after rejecting the
contention of the plaintiffs in favour of that of the defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. By an amendment to the notice
and grounds of appeal which was not opposed by the defendants, the plaintiffs raised
5
the issue of whether the kingmakers could deliberate upon one candidate or upon
more than one candidate having regard to the Ramodu of I mota Declaration 1957.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that the Chieftaincy Declaration
never spoke of "candidates" but
"a
candidate".
Dissatisfied with the judgment the defendants now appealed to the Supreme
10
Court, contending,
inter alia,
that the Court of Appeal erred to have allowed the
plaintiffs' contention on the Chieftaincy Declaration which was a complete turn about
from their case on the pleadings and evidence. The Plaintiffs argued that the
defendants are estopped from raising this point as the motion for leave to argue the
proposed grounds of appeal was granted without objection in the Court of Appeal.
15
HELD:
1.
It
is true that under Order 3, Rule 2(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an appellant
with leave of court may amend the grounds of appeal filed along with his Notice
but the original ground as well as any amended ground should be grounds of
appeal properly so called - that is grounds complaining of the resolution against
20
the appellant, of any issue contested in the trial court. Neither an original nor an
amended ground of appeal urging a completely different case not contested
before should be allowed.
2.
A Court of Appeal cannot consider, on appeal, a case which is the opposite of
either party's case at first instance. If it does that, it forfeits its role as an appellate
25
court and turns itself into a court of first instance to consider the "new action"
without the benefit of "new pleadings" or "new evidence".
3.
The Court of Appeal can only exercise appellate jurisdiction in respect of matters
vested in it by statute; and cannot exercise original jurisdiction. See section 220
of the 1979 Constitution. Thus every matter coming before it must emanate from
30
the High Court or such other courts over which it exercises appellate jurisdiction.
4.
Though, the defendant was in error not to have opposed the motion, that error
by itself alone did not relieve the Court of Appeal of the obligation on its own part
to refuse to entertain a ground which was a complete round turn, a complete
opposite of the plaintiffs' case as pleaded and as decided. Applying sections 220
35
and 221, the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal is to hear appeals from
decisions of a High Court.
5.
There is no doubt that the issue of
locus standi
which really goes to jurisdiction
could be raised at any stage and certainly there could be nothing wrong with its
being raised, even for the first time in the Supreme Court.
40
6. Since the case involves a chieftaincy matter, which deals with a fundamental
custom of the people and which is so important in their culture, the issue of
locus
standi
will only be dealt with, if and only if, the appellant could not succeed on
the other substantive issues.
7.
There is a distinction between putting across on appeal an entirely different case
45
and raising a question or issue comprised in the original case of a party but which
was not raised in the court below.
8.
A party raising a new point on appeal is relying on the same case as he made in
the court below, hence it is always held that the new point will be allowed to be
raised if it is founded on the same facts as were raised upon for the case in the
50
court below, and if the point had been raised on those facts no satisfactory
explanation could have been given in the court below.
9.
The object of pleadings is to fix the issues for trial accurately, and to appraise the
other side of the case which it would meet and thus afford it the opportunity to
call evidence to controvert such case.
66
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1989] 3 N.S.C.C.
10.
An appeal is an invitation to a higher court to review the decision of a lower court
to find out whether on proper consideration of the facts placed before it and the
applicable law, what that court arrived at is a correct decision.
11.
An appeal is not the inception of a new case. An appeal is generally regarded as
a continuation of the original suit rather than as an inception of a new action. That
5
being so an appeal should normally and generally be confined to considerations
of the record which came from the court below with no new testimony taken or
new issues raised in the appellate court.
12.
A "decision" is the determination arrived at after a due consideration of the facts
as pleaded and proved by credible evidence.
10
13.
A "judgment" is an official and authentic decision of a court upon the respective
rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted
to the determination of the court. It is the decision of a court resolving the dispute
between the parties and thus determining their rights and obligations. It is a
conclusion of law upon facts as found or admitted by the parties. It is a decision
15
given by a court upon matters submitted to it. It is the application of the law to
the pleadings, and to the facts as they appear from the evidence in the case and
as they are found by the court or jury, or admitted by the parties or as deemed
to exist upon their default.
Editorial Note:
20
The Supreme Court decided this case purely on the procedural irregularities in
the courts below. While the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be faulted, it is
our contention that the appeal would have equally succeeded if the "substantive"
issue decided by the Court of Appeal had been looked into.
The basis of the Court of Appeal's judgment was that the registered Chieftaincy
25
Declaration of I mota made reference to "a candidate" and that "candidates" cannot
be read into this provision. With due respect to their Lordships, this is not true, in
the light of the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1964.
Section 18 of the Interpretation Act defines law as "
including any instrument
having the force of law which is made under a law". Thus, the Chieftaincy Declaration
30
is a law, to which the Interpretation Act applies. See sections 1 and 29 of the Act.
Therefore, both the Declaration and the Interpretation Act are existing laws under
section 274 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Section 14(b) of the Interpretation Act provides that "in an enactment words in the
singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular". A declaration
35
is a subsidiary instrument under the provision of section 27 of the Interpretation Act
and thus falls within the definition of enactment under the same section.
It, thus, follows that the reference to "a candidate" in the Chieftaincy Declaration,
being a word in the singular should be construed to include "candidates" a word in
the singular, should be construed to include "candidates" a word in the plural.
40
[As to
Setting up a new case on Appeal,
see:
1.
Kasunmu v. lyanda & Ors
[1966] N.S.C.C. 49
2.
Akeredolu & Ors. v. Akinremi
[1986] 1 N.S.C.C. 581
45
3.
Wema Bank Limited v. Karummi
[1975] N.S.C.C. 4.]
[As to
Raising New Points on Appeal,
see:
1.
Fadare & Ors v. A-G., Oyo State
[1982] N.S.C.C. 52
50
2.
Mogaji & Ors. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. & Ors.
[1985] 2 N.S.C.C. 959
3.
Obiode & Ors. v. Orewere & Ors.
[1982] N.S.C.C. 44
4.
Kukoyi & Ors. V. Ladunni
[1976] N.S.C.C. 582.]
[As to
Effect of Pleadings,
see:
Onyekaonwu & Ors. v. Ekwubiri & Ors.
[1966]
N.S.C.C. 15.]
To continue reading
Request your trial