➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Alhaji Raimi Edun V. Odan Community, Ado Family and Okokomaiko Community (14 Nov 1980, SC.24/1979)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Setting aside a consent judgement.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
On 12th June, 1980, this Court, upon consent of the parties, delivered a consent judgment in the above case which came on appeal to the Court from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal. The details of the consent judgment (hereinafter simply referred to as the Consent Judgment) were as contained in the judgment of this Court as read by my Lord, the Presiding Justice, Sowemimo.
After the Consent Judgment had been delivered the application the subject-matter of this Ruling was brought by Chief Kehinde Sofola, S.A.N., of counsel, for Chief Yakubu Dawodu, the Olojo of Ojo described in the application as representing himself, the chiefs and people of Ojo, in Badagry Division – apparently the same people who were the original Defendants in the case in the High Court and who were represented by Mukandat Araga Akinleye – praying that this Court should set aside the Consent Judgment; and that the Applicants be heard in oral argument in the appeal; or in the alternative that this Court should order the Appellants to serve their written brief on the Applicants and grant the Applicants two weeks, extension of time within which to file and serve their reply brief. In support of the application Chief Yakubu Dawodu swore to an affidavit challenging the representation in the suit by Mukandat Araga Akinleye and the settlement of the case made between him and the Plaintiffs and filed in court on 26th October 1972.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether the consent judgement can be challenged by the Applicant who was not a party to the appeal?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL DISMISSED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
[THE APPLICANT IS NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT WHICH CAME FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
‘It is clear from his argument that Chief Sofola, in his pursuit of what he considers to be the intrinsic justice in his clients’ case, is less mindful of the procedure he has chosen to intervene in the appeal proceedings before this Court. But however strongly he may feel (and he may possibly have genuine complaints for so feeling) this Court must be sure that it is properly seized of a matter before embarking upon its determination. The Court is an Appellate Court whose foundations are firmly laid in the Constitution and blaming the provision in the Constitution giving it original jurisdiction in certain specified matters (See S.212), it has no original Jurisdiction. The appeal before this Court, in the course of the determination of which the Consent Judgment was delivered, came from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in pursuance of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by S.213 of the Constitution. The parties in the case before the Federal Court of Appeal did not include the Applicants who neither applied to the Federal Court of Appeal to be made parties before that Court, nor applied to it for leave to appeal against its judgment (even though they did not take part in the proceedings as persons having an interest in the matter, in accordance with S.1177 (a) of the Constitution (Amendment) (No.2) Decree No. 420 1976. (See: in Insurance Office Ltd. v. Victoria O. Ojemuyiwa (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 1 decided on the identical S.176 (6) (a) of the 1963 Constitution of Nigeria).’
‘The position, My Lords, is that the Applicants are asking you to set aside a Consent Judgment in respect of an appeal: (a) In which they are not parties; (b) In which they had not applied to the Federal Court of Appeal to be made parties; (c) In which they had not applied to the Federal Court of Appeal, or to this Court, for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in respect of which this appeal was brought; and (d) in which the parties to the appeal have agreed to the Consent Judgment. Indeed, the Applicants have not, in their motion before us, asked for leave to appeal.’
THE APPLICANT SLEPT ON THEIR RIGHT
‘Lest the erroneous impression be left that by my line of reasoning our penchant is with procedure rather than with justice and that we are oblivious to Justice and more mindful of procedure, it is necessary for me to point out that the Applicants appeared to have slept on their rights by their failure to take part, or do anything, in the case in the Federal Court of Appeal and through that Court to the Supreme Court until after the Consent Judgment was delivered. It will also not be out of place if special attention was drawn to the fact that the Lagos State Government had already acquired the land in dispute and that the Consent Judgment is not to be made the basis, by any of the parties, for claiming compensation from the said Lagos State Government as stated in the judgment of Sowemimo, J.S.C., set out hereinbefore.’
CHALLENGING CONSENT JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE DONE VIA RIGHT PROCEDURE
‘FINALLY, it is not inconceivable that circumstances may exist in which a stranger to a suit on appeal to this Court upon which a Consent Judgment has been entered, may challenge the Consent Judgment on grounds of fraud or conspiracy. Considerable doubt, however, must be entertained on whether he can sustain the challenge, as a matter of procedure, otherwise than by a substantive action instituted in a court of competent original jurisdiction.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘This application appears to me to be misconceived. It is accordingly hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents as decreed in the Order of my Lord, the Presiding Justice.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ THE COURT WILL DO JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
The court of last resort will indeed do justice but must do the justice by procedures laid down by the Law and the Constitution. The moment a court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and procedure laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular court to become a kangaroo court. — A. N. Aniagolu, J.S.C.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
A. N. Aniagolu, J.S.C.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
Kehinde Sofola SAN
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Chief F.R.A. Williams SAN
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
