PeakNews Online
Barely 72 working hours after taking arguments from over 10 lawyers, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of Court 6, Federal High Court Abuja, has fixed Suit No.: ABJ/CS/984/2024 – Rivers State House of Assembly & Anor. v. C.B.N. & 9 Ors for Judgment today 30th October, 2024.
This follows several outcries that tailed the proceedings of 25th October, 2024 wherein the Court sat for over 8 hours (from 9am to 5pm) hearing just this particular case.
Tension was further heighten and exacerbated when several SANs complained that justice was unnecessarily rushed to a breaking point, as they were been denied their rights to respond to certain court papers that were just served on them in relation to the matter. By the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 26, Rule 4) of the Federal High Court, when a court process (in this case, a motion paper) is served on a party, such a party has up to 7 (seven) days to reply. Sadly, this right was not allowed to most of these senior lawyers.
The case file was stuffed with plethora of interlocutory applications including those challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Suit, those by new parties seeking to be joined, and one asking the Court to recues itself on ground of likelihood of bias. While the Court has exercised its discretion and disposed of these interlocutory applications the way it did, I shall briefly highlight the popular sequence most lawyers expected the Judge to adopt, and without which the potential for miscarriage of justice might have gone up by a greater percent.
First, the Suit was instituted in the names of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the “pro-Wike” lawmakers. This posed an initial bottleneck when two different SANs sought to appear as the lawfully engaged counsel for the Rivers State House of Assembly. Interestingly, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik opted to open the day with resolving that issue. As logical and important as settling the issue of the proper Plaintiff’s counsel was, it never would have been contemplated that same would take precedence over several challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court, as that decision may erroneously be misrepresented by some quarters as an endorsement of one of the two factions of the State’s House of Assembly.
Similarly, jurisdictional challenges were kept in abeyance while the issue of applications for joinder as interested parties were entertained and dismissed, foreclosing, among others, Obiakpor Local Government Council from being made a party to the Suit. Whether the revenue sought to be blocked or suspended would have adverse effects on these parties, so as to justify that they were necessary parties to the matter, is a deep issue calling for exercise of jurisdiction (discretion and powers), and same ought not to be considered unless the certainty of the jurisdiction of the court has been anchored.
The downward spiral descent unto unknown realms in justice dispensation continued when Mr. Femi Falana moved a motion requesting self-recusal of the Judge from hearing the matter on grounds of likelihood of bias. Although remotely and almost invincible on face value, the contention of the SAN is that a Judge in Abuja was unfit to hear the case seeing that the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja was a person of interest in the Suit, which was instituted at the instance of the commonly referred “pro-Wike” lawmakers (or former lawmakers).
Two canons of law that must interplay in the mind of every Judge are that justice delayed is justice denied; but justice rushed is justice crushed. The speed to be adopted in the dispensation of justice must be such that a reasonable man should be able to say was modest and even realistic. It is amazing that the Court has in barely 5 days evaluated and written judgment over 11 different volumes of arguments on diverse points of law argued by several SANs in the case. Moreover, no matter how fast a Judge wish for justice to grind, he must never do so at the expense of, or to the peril of any of the parties appearing before him.
Put differently, all parties in a matter must exhaust all the time allocated to them by the rules, for taking steps or reacting to any court paper served on them, except they willfully opt to waive their rights either by abridging their time to respond or opting not to respond. It does not reside in the mouth of any judge to decide that a party does not need to respond or exhaust the time allowed in the rules. To make such a pronouncement would be to descend into the arena (act as an interested party in the outcome of the case) instead of sitting at the middle-higher platform, listening, watching and adjudicating as the parties on either side of the divide argue out their cases.
An instructive way to close this story is to bring back memories of the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal where then President of the Court of Appeal Zainab Bulkachuwa, PCA in a similar motion, dismissed the allegations but went on to personally recues herself from participating in, and leading the Panel, motives notwithstanding. A judge most never give room for more than half of the lawyers and spectators in any proceeding to think the judge has been compromised or has a personal interest in the case. If that happened inadvertently, then it’s a u-turn and not a cross road, and the decision to take shouldn’t be too difficult.
In all, we hope the judgment of today would not have Rivers State thrust into further chaos and anarchy too big for the centre to hold. Nigeria as a Nation meets her fiscal needs base on generated incomes and loans, as allocations are largely generation-dependent. Thus refusing a State, or any Unit within a State, the reciprocal derivation or benefits through other formulas of revenue sharing, as provided for by Section 162 (1), (2), (3), (6), (7) & (8), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, may be met with stiff counter-reactions better left to imagination, and best avoided. A stitch in time saves nine.
Q & A – The Lawyer’s Feedback
Dear Barrister Jude. I bought a land in a proposed estate sometime in 2015 and was given a letter for provisional allocation which showed clearly that I was assigned a corner piece in Phase 2 of the Estate project. In 2023 May, I requested to be shown my plot on site. It turned out that where I was shown isn’t a corner piece and was even Phase 3. I did my own discreet investigation and went to Phase 2 where I found a magnificent building resting on my plot. I realized at that point that I have been shortchanged and I sought explanations, and the developers did not give any satisfactory clarification. They are now pressurizing me to bring back my papers to be reissued another one, as they claimed there was a mix up.
Position of the Law
Thanks for reaching out dear. Yours is quite an interesting, but not an uncommon practice in that industry.
1) To start with, the truth is that the land you acquired has more market value than what they now offer you. Lands always appreciate and hardly ever depreciate.
2) The investment you made with them will be static if they keep moving you hinter. As such, you have a valid case (cause of action).
3) Exactly what document(s) do you have? You mentioned the temporary allocation letter. There is also a high likelihood that you were also given a Deed of Assignment or Deed of Transfer. Both the agreement and your temporary allocation letter should expressly spell out your plot location.
4) A lawyer up with his or her games, armed with the document(s) you have, can reclaim your plot, get you huge compensation or some other reliefs to restore you as nearly as possible to where you should be, as if you weren’t shortchanged.
5) If it results to litigation (court case), the matter will be commenced by Writs of Summon, filed at the High Court of the State where the land is located. It will likely go on to trial where you will testify (give evidence before a Judge), and the developers too will tell their own story, before final argument and judgment.
6) However, it is always advisable to send them a letter of demand through a lawyer, offering them a last opportunity to right the wrongs or face legal action.
7) If there was a Deed of Assignment or Deed of Transfer, it must be read between lines to be sure there are no clauses that justify arbitral and unilateral reallocation by the developers, as well as possible ouster or suspension clauses that make it impossible to sue or mandatory to exhaust amicable settlement before litigation (going to court).
Yours truly, JD
***
Readers and followers are advised to keep the questions coming and don’t be discouraged if I am yet to pick and answer yours. The questions are picked randomly. So keep sending them in through all of my official channels of communication as disclosed in this column.
Notable Pronouncement/Quote
“And so Judges should, on no account, dance to the music played by politicians because that will completely destroy their role as independent umpires in the judicial process. Let no Judge flirt with politicians in the performance of their constitutional adjudicatory functions. When I say this, I must also say that I have nothing against politicians. They are our brothers and sisters in our homes. One can hardly find in any Nigerian community or family without them. There cannot be democracy without them and we need democracy, not despotism, oligarchy and totalitarianism. They are jolly good fellows. The only point I am making is that their professional tools are different from ours and the Nigerian Judge should know this before he finds himself or falls into a mirage where he cannot retrace his steps to administer justice. That type of misfortune can fall on him if the National Judicial Council gets annoyed of his conduct. Ours are not theirs. Theirs are not ours. I will say no more. I will say no less. So be it.”
~ Per Niki Tobi, JSC (as he then was)
while delivering the Lead Judgment on Friday, 12th December, 2008 in the case of Buhari v. INEC [2008] 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) SC 246 AT P.409, PARAS. C-E
