Does The Failure to Deliver a Judgment Within the Time Limit Stipulated Automatically Render it a Nullity?

CASE TITLE:  KADUNA & ORS v. ATOSHI & ORS (2025) LPELR-80100(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND JANUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State, Wukari Division.

The Appellants’ case was that the 1st Respondent had approached them for permission to plant palm trees and set up an oil palm plantation and processing facilities on their lands, with the promise that they would get employment opportunities in the said venture. The agreement was that though the 1st Respondent would plant the palm trees, the Appellants would still retain ownership of their lands and continue to intercrop and cultivate other crops on the land. And for this, the Appellants state that the 1st Respondent compensated them for the use of their land with some monetary gift. This agreement was in 2005. Years down the line, when this palm plantation project failed, the Appellants claim that the 1st Respondent then gave this farmland to the 2nd to 6th Respondents who are his agents to be farming thereon, despite the Appellants demanding the return of their lands to them in accordance with their original agreement. The failure of the Defendants to surrender this land to the Appellants prompted the Appellants to ask their solicitor to write a formal letter of demand to the Respondents. This letter was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P1. It was the failure of this letter to achieve the desired result that caused the Appellants to take out the writ against the Respondents. The Respondents while not denying that the Appellants had original radical title to the lands, contended instead that the lands had been acquired by the 1st Respondent, and that this was evidenced by an agreement between the 1st Respondent and the Appellants. This document was admitted in evidence as Exhibit D1.

At the end of the trial, the Court dismissed the claim of the Appellants upon consideration of the evidence and case of the parties, while upholding the defence of the Respondents that they are the owners of the lands by acquisition.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issue formulated by the parties viz:

Whether the non-compliance with Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by the trial Court in the extant case has occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellants to warrant this Honourable Court allow the appeal and set aside the whole decision of the trial Court?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- RECORD OF APPEAL: Whether an appellate court as well as the parties are bound by the record of appeal
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Fundamental nature of the right to fair hearing and effect of breach of same
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT: Whether failure to deliver a judgment within the time limit stipulated automatically renders it a nullity; duty of a party complaining of delay in delivery of judgment and effect of failure
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- WRITING OF JUDGMENT: Position of the law where a Court in the course of writing its judgment discovers an important issue that was not addressed by the parties at the time of hearing
• JUSTICE- MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: What constitutes a miscarriage of justice and instance of a miscarriage of justice that will form the basis of interference by an appellate court
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RECORD OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: Instance(s) of what does not amount to challenging the correctness of a record of proceedings
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RE-OPENING A CASE: Principles of law that guide the court in the exercise of its discretion to allow parties re-open their case in a civil action

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