By, giwa alex, Jos
The Plateau State High Court sitting in Plateau state capital under justice David Mann has reserved ruling on application brought by Alh. Yakubu Shanono plaintiff/respondent
and Chairman,Bokkos local government council Dauda Bitrus maren (sued as district head of Daffo ) defendants/objectors
Ashiru Shanono
Suleiman Abdullahi
Gambo Usman
Barr. Nri .I. Darong, Esq.,
James Nimkap, Esq.
(Defendants/Objectors’ Counsel seeking for the following reliefs sought:
an order of this honourable court dismissing and/or striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction and incompetence.
According to him the application dated this 21ST day of February, 2020 ,adding that the matter set up for the continuation of hearing filed on 19th March, 2020 filed the same date .
The plaintiff did not issue the statutory one month written notice to the defendants or Bokkos Local Government before he instituted this suit.
The plaintiff had once sued the privies of the defendants in Suit No.: PLD/P2/2011: Ardo Yakubu Shanono v. Stephen Maren & Anor. over his removal as Hardo of Daffo by the Saf Daffo and the suit was struck.
A copy of the proceedings striking out the suit is annexed and marked as Exhibit A.
After the suspension of the plaintiff as Ardo in 2008, one Shuaibu Abubakar (now late) was appointed as Ardo of Daffo by the 2nd Defendant on 3/10/2008 until Bimbi Shanono (sometimes spelt Bimbim) was elected as Ardo of Daffo Josho.
That after the demise of Alh. Madugu Machiu as Ardo of Daffo South (Ardo Fulanin Kudu), Shagari Abdullahi was elected to replace him and the 2nd Defendant did the appointment.
That the Ardo (sometimes spelt Hardo) of Daffo is not a stool by an appointed of the 2nd Defendant/Objector.
That the plaintiff then filed another suit, Suit No. PLD/J186/2016: Alhaji Hardo Yakubu Shanono v. Bokkos Local Government Council & Anor. but the suit was struck because proper parties were not sued. A copy of the Ruling striking out the suit is annexed and marked Exhibit B.
He told the Court that the applications of 6 grounds giving rise to the objection and the relief sought with 6 paragraph affidavit in support of motion on notice
:
The Plaintiff/Respondent,
c/o His Counsel,
Sunday B. Lugard, Esq.
c/o Secretary,
Department of Law & Jurisprudence,
Faculty of Law, University of Jos,
Bauchi Road,
Jos ,as district head of Daffo defendants/objectors
ASHIRU SHANONO
Suleiman Abdullahi
Gambo Usmanaffidavit in support of motion on notice
I, Esther Nathan, Adult, Female, Nigerian Citizen of 67B Museum Road, Jos do make oath and state as follows:
That I am the Litigation Secretary in Mentor Chambers and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts of this case.
That I have the consent and authority of the 1st defendant and my employers to depose to this affidavit.
That I am informed by the Hon. Yusuf Machen, the Chairman, Bokkos Local Government Council, who is the 1st Defendant/Objector in our office at 67B Museum Road, Jos on 14/8/2019 at 5.30 p.m. and the 2nd and 5th Objectors at Bokkos Local Government Council Secretariat, Bokkos on 16/1/2020 at 1 p.m. and I verily believe them as follows:
That the defendants were served with the writ of summons wherein they entered a memorandum of conditional appearance to the suit.
That there is no chieftaincy stool created by Plateau State Government known as Ardo of Daffo.
That the objectors did not raise an objection to this suit immediately it s served on them because of the need to settle the issue so that there can be peace in Daffo.
That when a settlement meeting was held in Bokkos Local Government Council Secretariat on 16/1/2020, all the Fulani in Daffo except the plaintiff and the Bokkos Traditional Council agreed on a settlement but the plaintiff asked for two weeks to consult on the solution.
That the plaintiff then sent word after two weeks that he does not accept the solution all the attendees at the meeting except him proffered.
That the plaintiff did not exhaust any remedy for resolution of the dispute before coming to court.
That I am informed by N.I. Darong, Esq. in our office at 67B Museum Road, Jos on 19/2/2020 at 5.30 p.m. and I verily believe them as follows:
The claim of the plaintiff to the Hardo of Daffo is caught up by the Limitation Law having being filed more than 5 years after he ceased to hold the position of Ardo of Daffo (Hardo of Daffo).
That this suit is incompetent in the absence of a one written notice of intention to sue written by the plaintiff and served on the defendants or Bokkos Local Government Council.
That this suit cannot be determined in the absence of Shagari Abdullahi, Mairiga Madugu and Bimbim Shanono.
That the plaintiff has no cause of action because there is no chieftaincy stool known as Ardo of Daffo or Hardo of Daffo by way of written declaration by the Governor of Plateau State.
That this suit is premature in the absence of the plaintiff exploring all mechanism for resolution of any dispute over the stool of Ardo of Daffo.
That this suit which is the third suit filed over the subject matter is an abuse of court process.
That it will be in the interest of justice to dismiss to the suit and/or strike out same.
That I depose to this affidavit in good faith believing same to be true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in accordance with the Oaths Act.
notice of preliminary objection brought pursuant to section 102(1) of the local government law, 2018; sections 18 and 20 of the chieftaincy law, 2006; section 18 of the limitation law, 1988 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court, that Counsel on behalf of the Objectors shall, before the hearing of this suit, raise a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the Plaintiff/Respondent’s suit filed on 7/8/2019 as the suit is grossly incompetent.
grounds of this objection are AS fellows:
The action is statute-barred having been filed more than 5 months after the plaintiff ceased to hold the position of Hardo of Daffo (Ardo of Daffo).
No one month written notice was delivered by the plaintiff to the Local Government.
The plaintiff did not exhaust the internal mechanism before filing this suit.
This suit is an abuse of court process because the plaintiff had sued some of the defendants at various times and his action was struck out or dismissed.
There is no stool in Plateau State known as Hardo of Daffo for the plaintiff to have a cause of action to claim under.
The occupants of the position of Hardo in Daffo are not parties to this suit.
Take further notice that at that hearing of this objection, the Objectors shall find and rely on all the processes/affidavits/documents and such other instruments as may be necessary towards fast-tracking the conclusion of this suit premise.
The occupants of the position of Hardo in Daffo are not parties to this suit.
An aaphs and 2 annemarked Exhibits A and B support this notice of preliminary objection. The objectors place reliance on the supporting affidavit and Exhibits A and B.
The claim of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to the stool of Ardo of Daffo and that his suspension from that position in 2008 and appointed of about 4 persons whose names he stated thereafter to the stool by the 2nd defendant is null and void. The plaintiff also claimed that when he wrote a complaint to the 1st defendant to look into the issue of the Ardo of Daffo in April, 2019, a committee made up the 3rd to 5th defendants recommended that all claimants to Ardo of Daffo forfeit their positions to pave way for a single Ardo of Daffo and that, when he perceived that an election will be conducted, he rushed to Court challenging a process he initiated.
The defendants are challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to adjudicate on this suit. objecting to this suit based on the plaintiff’s claim.
2.00 ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION
2.01 In the opinion of the objectors, the only issue which calls to be determined by your Lordship is as follows:
1. Whether this suit is not caught up by the Limitation Law of Plateau State.
2. Whether in the absence of a one month written notice, this suit can be filed.
3. Whether having previously litigated on this subject matter which were all struck out, this suit is not an abuse of court process.
4. Whether there is a stool known as Hardo of Daffo (Ardo of Daffo) for the plaintiff to have a cause of action thereto.
If question 4 is answered in the positive, then question 5
5. Whether the plaintiff can file this suit without exploring the dispute resolution mechanism for disputes regarding chieftaincy stools.
6. By refusing to join other Hardo (Ardo), whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this suit.
3.00 ARGUMENT
3.01 A Court is said to have jurisdiction in the following circumstances:
a. When it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members and no member is disqualified for one reason or another;
b. When the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction;
c. When the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction; and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled.
I refer the Court to Chime v. Chime (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 734 at 749, paras. A-D; Keystone Bank Ltd. v. J.O. Adebiyi & Sons Nig. Ltd. (2015) 1 MWLR (Pt. 1439) 98 at 111-112; Cadbury Nig. Plc v. Federal Board of Inland Revenue (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) 561 at 576.
3.02 Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided; the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.- see Chime v. Chime (supra.). Jurisdiction is that blood that gives live to another case and where a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, a judgment delivered thereto is a nullity ab initiono matter how beautifully made. Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court shall first of all assume jurisdiction to decide in clear and unequivocal terms whether it has or lacks jurisdiction before proceeding further.
3.03 What determines jurisdiction is the plaintiff’s claim and not the effects that claim will have if successful- Matarradona v. Ahu (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 412) 225 at 235 para. H. The law is settled that in determining whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, only the Plaintiff’s claim is looked at and no other. That is to say, the Plaintiff’s claim, and nothing else, donates jurisdiction- Akinfolarin & Ors. v.Akinnola (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 335) 659.
3.1 ISSUE NO. 1
3.1.1 A look at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of claim will show that the plaintiff pleaded that he ceased to hold office 3/10/2008 when the 2nd defendant suspended him from office based on a malicious letter written to the 2nd defendant by some group of persons on 1/10/2008. The plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim that he was also prosecuted at the Chief Magistrate’s Court Bokkos in CMCBK/102CR/08: Commissioner of Police v. Ardo Yakubu Shanono but the case was withdrawn on 2/3/2009. The plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 13 of the statement of claim that the anomalies regarding his stool only came to fore when he wrote a letter dated 22/4/2019 to the 1st defendant to weigh into the matter. From when he was suspended with another Ardo acting and several Ardo later appointed and when the plaintiff wrote a letter to the 1st defendant
You must be logged in to post a comment.