Can a Non-Party Challenge a Court Judgment?

CASE TITLE: AKUT & ORS v. RWANG & ORS (2024) LPELR-61664(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2024

JUSTICES: ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA
MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA

DIVISION: KADUNA

PRACTICE AREA: JUDGMENT AND ORDER

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kaduna State sitting at Kafanchan delivered on the 4th day of April, 2016.

The appeal stems from a dispute regarding a Court order to attach a property for auction. The appellants, who were beneficiaries of a monetary judgment against the 12th to 13th respondents, agreed to sell certain properties belonging to the respondents to settle the judgment. However, the counsel for the 1st to 11th respondents, who were also beneficiaries of a separate judgment against the same respondents, initiated an attachment process for a property different from the one agreed upon for sale.

The appellants sought to set aside the attachment order, arguing that the property in question was not the one intended for sale and that the attachment was unjustified. The 1st to 11th respondents countered, stating that the appellants were not parties to the relevant suit and had not appealed its decision. They also claimed that the property subject to attachment was different from the one mentioned by the appellants.

The trial court dismissed the appellants’ motion to set aside the attachment order, prompting the appellants to appeal the decision.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues, viz:

1. Was the learned trial Judge right when it dismissed the appellants’ motion dated November 20, 2015, without considering the merits of the same?
2. Was the learned trial Judge right when he raised the issue suo motu and held that the appellants have no nexus between their suit before the lower Court even when the same issue was abandoned by the 1st to 11th respondents when their counsel withdrew their preliminary objection.
3. Was the learned trial Judge right when he held that the arrangement of counsel to jointly sell properties to satisfy the judgment of Court are extraneous matters that have nothing to do with the matter at the lower Court.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS: 

The appellants’ counsel argued that the trial Court erred in holding that the appellants, not being parties to Suit No. KDH/KAF/72/2013, couldn’t apply to set aside the Court order favoring the 1st to 11th respondents. It was asserted that post-judgment applications regarding property attachment are governed by specific laws, allowing any affected party to apply for setting aside the attachment order, regardless of their involvement in the original suit. They referred to relevant sections of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Judgment Enforcement Rules to support their argument.

The 1st to 11th respondents’ counsel countered, stating that the appellants admitted in their affidavit that they were not parties to Suit No. KDH/KAF/72/2013, as noted by the trial Court. They argued that the trial Court correctly relied on this admission and that the appellants should have initiated interpleader proceedings if they disputed the property attachment. They contended that the laws cited by the appellants’ counsel were not applicable in this case.

The appellants’ counsel further argued that the trial Court improperly raised the issue of their non-party status without inviting parties to address it, citing several cases. However, the respondents’ counsel disputed this assertion, stating that the trial Court’s findings were based on the appellants’ own affidavit and other facts provided by them.

Ultimately, the appellants’ counsel urged the Court to rule in their favor, arguing that the trial Court’s decision was flawed. Conversely, the respondents’ counsel urged the Court to reject the appellants’ arguments and uphold the trial Court’s ruling.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIO:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER – SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT/ORDER: Whether a person who is not a party to an action can apply to a Court to set aside its judgment in such action; option(s) open to such person

“While it is not in dispute that where a non-party is interested in a thing, as the property in this appeal, and the same is a court judgment and the enforcement is adverse to the interest of the party, he may approach the Court of law to have the order set aside on the circumstances which the Court would consider, and if the justice of the case permits, the application may be granted; the circumstances of the case as I stand must meet the justice of the case for the application to set aside an enforcement order to be granted.

The Appellants in this case may also come by interpleader proceedings as suggested by the trial Court. Therefore, it is not in all circumstances that you must be a party to a suit for you to bring an application in the suit. Exceptional circumstances, such as the one in this case, permit non-parties to a suit to bring an application, and the same may be granted where the justice of the case permits.” Per HASSAN, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol