CASE TITLE: JAMAARE v. JAMAARE & ORS (2022) LPELR-57113(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND MARCH, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the Order of Certiorari.
FACTS:
The Appellant in this appeal was the Defendant in the suit filed by the 1st Respondent as Plaintiff before the Sharia Court 1 Jama’are, in Suit No. CVF/36/2019 wherein he claimed the sum of N2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira)
Appellant and the 1st Respondent had an agreement to the effect that the 1st Respondent will finance a business venture of buying certain produce called “Madrick” which would be exported to China. The 1st Respondent offered to finance the purchase of the goods. He then gave the sum of N2,200,000, to the Appellant/Defendant. It was agreed that the Appellant would be remitting to the 1st Respondent the sum of N200,000.00, as profit to be realized from the sale of the said “Madrick”.
Appellant claimed to have purchased the goods but encountered some problems with the authorities of Gwaram L.G.A of Jigawa State, who seized some of the goods (Madrick) despite payment of royalties for the goods. The foregoing situation was said to have been made known to the 1st Respondent who did not agree with the Appellant’s explanation for failing to remit the N200,000.00 monthly profit to him. Hence the 1st Respondent instituted the suit against the Appellant, claiming the sum of N2,500,000.00.
Parties were able to come to an amicable settlement, regarding how the appellant will offset the debt, and this engendered terms of the settlement, which were adopted by the trial Court as its judgment. The Court thereafter adjourned to a later date. On the return date, the Appellant was absent and not represented. The 1st Respondent applied that the appellant is arrested, which application/request was granted by the trial Court. The appellant was therefore arrested and made to appear before the trial judge, who ordered that he be remanded in prison, and be released on bail, after the fulfilment of some conditions.
Consequently, the appellant applied to the High Court of Bauchi State for the prerogative order of certiorari pursuant to Order 43 Rule 3 of the High Court Rules of Bauchi State. The application was refused. The Appellant/Applicant was not happy with the outcome, hence the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on a sole issue as follows:
“Whether the lower Court was right to have refused the Appellant’s application for judicial review against the proceedings and orders of the 2nd Respondent for the arrest and detention of the Appellant made in violation of the provision of Order 9 of the Bauchi State Sharia Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2001.”
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal succeeded and was allowed. In consequence, the finding and conclusions of the High Court were set aside and quashed. The Court ordered that the Appellant be released unconditionally and with immediate effect.
RATIOS:
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER – ORDER OF CERTIORARI: Nature of an order of certiorari and when same will lie
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER – FUNCTUS OFFICIO: Meaning of functus officio; when is a court said to be functus officio
