Samuel Abolarin V. Chairman Rent Tribunal No.3 Lugard Hall, Kaduna & Ors (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IGE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Yahaya J. delivered on 14/2/91 in Suit No. KDH/KAD/231M/90. This case originated from the Kaduna Rent Tribunal No.3 presided over by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent (later referred to as 2nd to 5th respondents after the death of the 2nd respondent) sued the appellant to court for recovery of possession of the house known as No.3 Garden Avenue. Afaka, Mando village, Kaduna. The respondents also asked for payment of arrears of rent at N200 a month from June 1990 up to the date of judgment and mesne profit thereafter.

The 1st respondent as the Chairman of the Rent Tribunal No.3 gave judgment in favour of the respondent upon the admission of the appellant.

The appellant was later dissatisfied with that judgment hence he took out a writ of certiorari in the Kaduna High Court for a judicial review of the judgment of the 1st respondent for the purpose of being quashed. This gave rise to Suit No. KDH/KAD/23/M/90 before Yahaya J of the Kaduna High Court wherein the appellant complained that 1st respondent acted without jurisdiction as the relationship between him and the respondents was not that of landlord and tenant.

After looking into the application and considering all the affidavits in support and against, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment in favour of the respondents on 14/2/91 thus:-

“From all the above, it is my well considered view, that the 2nd defendant/respondent had an equitable title to the premises having been so recognised by both the applicant and the law. Even if this did not pass title to him, it is obvious that the power of attorney donated to the 2nd respondent entitled him to exercise all rights including taking possession and collecting rents on the property. This right is general and does not in any way exclude the donor. Once he exercised this right, the donor could not complain. The case Ebesua v. Nbaduba (1981)11 CA 220 AT 228 cited by Mr. Owolabi is direct on this issue. I hold therefore that the proceedings before Rent Tribunal III Kaduna were valid and in order and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter since it was a relationship between a landlord (Donee of the power attorney) and tenant (Donor of the power of attorney). The application lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment and orders of the Rent Tribunal III may be enforced directly.

Sgd

Justice A. Yahaya

Judge

14/2/91”

The appellant is further dissatisfied with this judgment and has appealed to this court.

In his Notice of Appeal dated 15th February, 1991, the appellant filed one ground of appeal with a promise to file further grounds of appeal. This is the original ground of appeal and it reads thus with its particulars:-

“The learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself on points of law when he held to the effect that considering all the documents before him it was clear to him that the appellant/applicant had “sold” his house to the 2nd respondent.

Particulars of errors in law

(a) No “Sale” or alienation is valid in law or enforceable by a court of law unless such a “Sale” or alienation was done with the consent in writing of the Military Governor of the State.

(b) There was no consent of the Military Governor presented to the court in respect of the transaction before the court.

(c) The learned trial Judge failed entirely to advert to any of so many legal principles relevant to issues before him.

Particulars of misdirection in law

(a) The reasoning and decision of learned trial Judge were based on issues not traversed before him.

(b) The counsel to the 2nd respondent abandoned their claim to assignment in the face of incurably defective documents.

(c) The issue for resolution following (b) was whether the alleged Power of Attorney could entitle the donee to evict the donor from the subject property.

(d) The learned trial Judge failed to address this issue but rather misdirected his whole efforts unto reasoning in sentimental abstract.

(e) Further grounds of appeal shall be filed when the records of proceedings are available.”

The appellant later with leave of this court filed on 4/5/95, three additional grounds of appeal which I will number Grounds 2, 3 & 4. The grounds read thus:-

2. “The trial Rent Tribunal erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in adjudicating in a dispute between the appellant and the 2nd respondent whereas there was no landlord and tenant relationship between them.

Particulars

1. The Rent Tribunal acted per incuriam
2. Section 9 of the Rent Edict of Kaduna State allows the Rent Tribunal to adjudicate only in certain cases between landlord and tenant.
3. The case between the appellant and the 2nd respondent involved substantial questions of law particularly:-

(a) as to the interpretation of the transaction between both of them;

(b) as to whether there was a valid sale of appellant’s house to the 2nd respondent;

(c) as to whether the power of attorney granted by the appellant enabled the 2nd respondent to evict him.

3. The learned High Court Judge erred in law in failing to quash a judgment of the Rent Tribunal No. 3 of Kaduna which judgment the said Rent Tribunal gave without jurisdiction.

Particulars

1. The application before the Judge was for an order of certiorari and for an order quashing the judgment of the Rent Tribunal.
2. The ground was that the said Rent Tribunal acted without jurisdiction.
3. The documents presented by both parties and the averments in their affidavit sufficiently showed that there were substantial issues of law between the appellant and the 2nd respondent yet to be pronounced upon by a court of competent jurisdiction.
4. The High Court ought at that point to quash the judgment of the Rent Tribunal.
5. It was not open to the High Court to make the far reaching pronouncements in order to uphold the void judgment of the Rent Tribunal.
6. The learned High Court Judge erred in law and acted in excess of his jurisdiction when upon hearing the issue of an application, for an order of certiorari and for an order quashing the judgment of an inferior court he undertook to adjudicate into and made pronouncements on contestable and substantial questions of law between parties.

Particulars

1. An application under Order 42 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of Kaduna State allows only for the judicial review by a higher court of the acts of an inferior court.
2. The questions of law which arose in the transactions between the appellant and the 2nd respondent needed to be pronounced upon before the Rent Tribunal could have jurisdiction to adjudicate between them.
3. It was not competent for the High Court to expand the application for certiorari to cover consideration and pronouncement on issues that were independently contestable.”

For determination in this appeal, the appellant has formulated two issues namely:-

1. “Whether or not it was right for the Judge of the High Court to fail to quash the judgment of the trial Rent Tribunal considering the fact that there were very clear evidence that the said trial Rent Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate in the case in which the judgment was given on the basis that the nature of the dispute between the parties did not indicate relationship of landlord and tenant
2. Whether or not the Honourable Judge of the High Court was right in considering and making pronouncements on contestable and substantial questions of law rather than just weighing out whether or not the judgment of the Rent Tribunal ought to be quashed.”

After criticising the two issues framed by the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents formulated only one issue for determination. The respondents’ issue reads thus:-

“Whether consent of Military Governor is necessary for exercise of jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal in property where the parties before the tribunal were not in dispute as to title and the appellant has accepted to pay arrears of rent to the respondent and further requested for time to deliver possession thereto.”

In his brief of argument counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection on the grounds of appeal filed in this case. His objections are:-

1. “That the ground of appeal in this matter is vague, misleading and was not elegantly drafted and is therefore incompetent and not a proper ground.
2. That particulars 1 (a) – (c) and 2 (a) – (e) are not only amplifications or clarification of the complaint improperly raised in the ground of appeal but are independent complaint or submission and ought to be struck out.
3. That the issues raised by the appellant were not based on the ground of appeal filed in the appeal, therefore the ground of appeal is presumed abandoned.
4. That all the issues discussed in the appellant’s brief of argument could not be designed from the ground of appeal.
5. The appellant filed only one ground of appeal but framed 2 and verbose issues for determination. The two issues framed by the appellant are incompetent and should be struck out.
6. That there cannot be a ground of appeal involving error in law and misdirection in law and such ground is not a good ground and must be struck out.”

He therefore urged this court to dismiss the appeal. The appellant’s counsel in his Reply Brief dated 10/7/96 submitted that the preliminary objection is misleading and rather adventurist. He submitted that the objection is utterly misconceived and should be ignored by the Court of Appeal and the appeal should be considered on its merit. He further stated that every issue being canvassed in this appeal goes to the competence and jurisdiction of the lower court who while sitting as a tribunal to exercise supervisory powers over a lower tribunal, went ahead to exercise its inherent jurisdiction as the High Court of a State. Issues bearing on competence and jurisdiction can be raised at any time without leave of court.

Let me first of all correct the impression created by the respondents that only one ground of appeal was filed by the appellant. As I said earlier on there are 4 grounds of appeal filed in this case, 1 original and 3 additional ground.

The law is very clear on the procedure to be adopted when drafting grounds of appeal. Under Order 3 Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 as amended, a ground of appeal which alleges an error or misdirection in law to be a valid ground of appeal, must comply with the following conditions –

1. Quote the passage in the judgment where the misdirection or error in law is alleged to have occurred;
2. Specify the nature of the error in law or misdirection; and
3. Give full and substantial particulars of the alleged error or misdirection -Anyaoke v. Adi (1986)3 NWLR (Pt. 31)731 at 741; Anadi V. Okoli (1977)7 SC 57 followed; and Olawuyi V. Adeyemi (1990)4 NWLR (Pt 147)746.

It is also trite law that grounds of appeal upon which issues are formulated for determination, must relate to the matters decided in the judgment from which the appeal originates. See the case of Egbe v. Alhaji (1990)1 NWLR (Pt. 128)546 at 590.

Now let us apply the above principles to the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant in this case. The first ground which is the original ground talks of error in law and misdirection in law by the learned trial Judge. The appellant’s particulars of error in law and misdirection in law have failed to comply with Order 3 r.2 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981. The appellant went on to argue his case in his stated particulars instead of quoting the exact portion of the judgment where the error or misdirection has occurred. He gave 3 particulars of errors in law and 5 particulars of misdirection in law all of which amounted to his argument of ground 1. He did not have to argue his ground of appeal through his particulars of error but through issues formulated in the appeal. See the cases of Macaulay V. NAL Merchant Bank (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.144) 283 and Egbe V. Alhaji (1990)1 NWLR (Pt.128) 546 at 590.

In an appeal, it is issues that are argued and not grounds. Arguments based on grounds of appeal instead of issues formulated for determination must be disregarded and discountenanced by the Court. See the cases of Adejemo V. Ayantegbe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt 110)417; Popoola V. Adeyemo (1992)8 NWLR (Pt.257)1 at 31; and Sanusi V. Ayoola (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.265) 275. In this case not only did the particulars of ground 1 fail to comply with Order 3 R,2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981, but they are unnecessary amplifications and clarification, and unrelated to the complaint alleged in ground 1. This ground is therefore incompetent and must be struck out. Ground 1 is struck out by me.

I now go to Ground 2 which is Ground 1 of the additional grounds of appeal.

The wordings of ground 2 seem to be complaining about the decision of the Rent Tribunal which is not the decision before this court. No appeal lies directly from the Rent Tribunal to the Court of Appeal hence ground 2 is inapplicable and must be struck out. Ground 2 is baseless and is therefore struck out with all its particulars. It is wrong for the appellant to attack the decision of the Rent Tribunal No.3 of Kaduna State in the Court of Appeal – See the case of Oge v. Ede (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 385) 564 at 576.

Now to Ground 3 which says the learned trial Judge erred in law by failing to quash a judgment of the Rent Tribunal No.3 of Kaduna which judgment the said Tribunal gave without jurisdiction. Again the particulars stated by the appellant under this ground consist of narration and argument relating to documents and pronouncements made by the learned trial Judge. The appellant failed to specify the particulars and the part of the judgment where the error in law was committed by the learned trial judge. I am afraid this ground also fails as being incompetent.

It is hereby struck out along with its particulars and arguments.

Ground 4 says the learned trial Judge erred in law and acted in excess of jurisdiction when upon hearing the issue of an application for an order of certiorari and for an order quashing the judgment of the inferior court, he undertook to adjudicate into and made pronouncements on contestable and substantial questions of law between the parties. As he did in grounds 1 & 3, the appellant in his particulars under ground 4 went on to argue his complaints under that ground. He neither quoted the specific part of the judgment complained of, nor the pronouncements made by the learned trial Judge showing the “contestable and substantial” questions of law between the parties. This ground is even worse than the other 3 earlier grounds of appeal in that it involves question of mixed law and fact by the way it is couched. That the learned trial Judge exceeded his jurisdiction is a matter of law, but to adjudicate into and make pronouncements on contestable and substantial questions in a case, I am afraid is a question of fact

A ground of appeal cannot be an error in law and misdirection on the facts simultaneously. Wherever it does so as in this case, the ground is incompetent and should be struck out. See the case of Akuchie v. Nwamadi (1992)8 NWLR (Pt.258) 216. I hereby strike out ground 4 as incompetent

I am afraid the appellant is not left with any valid and competent ground of appeal from which he could formulate issues for determination. The two issues formulated by the appellant in this case therefore have to be discountenanced and struck out because they have not flown from anywhere. Issues 1 & 2 as formulated by the appellant’s counsel are hereby struck out. In effect respondents’ preliminary objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as incompetent.

This is an unfortunate case where counsel for the appellant has failed flagrantly to comply with the Rules of Court in couching his grounds of appeal properly as required by the Rules. This court and the Supreme Court have held times without number that counsel in appeal cases must comply with the Rules as laid down by the Courts. The Rules of Court are not made for fun.

The Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to ensure that litigants comply with the relevant Rules of Court, and where they have failed to do so they must be ready to face striking out of their processes or a dismissal of their case. See the case of Onifade V. Olayiwola (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.161) 130.

I have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal as lacking in merit and unsustainable. Appeal dismissed with N2,000.00 costs in favour of the respondents.

---

Other Citations: (1997)LCN/0334(CA)