What A Party Complaining of Undue Delay in the Delivery of a Judgment Must Establish for Him to be Entitled to a Reversal of the Judgment

CASE TITLE:  MAGAJI & ORS v. LEVI & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81970(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH AUGUST, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

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

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the timeframe for delivery of judgment.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Adamawa State, Yola Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice Fatima Ahmed Tafida, on 22/12/22, which decided in favour of the Respondents, granting all reliefs sought by them in their Statement of Claim, and rejecting the counterclaim of the Appellants.

The Respondents, as “plaintiffs”, instituted an action before the lower Court against the Appellants as “defendants” via a Writ of Summons. They sought the following reliefs, amongst others:

i. A DECLARATION that the land in dispute measuring about 950×270 feet located at Munga – Dulpama, Hong Local Government Area of Adamawa State belongs to the Plaintiffs.

ii. A DECLARATION that any form of sale of the land in dispute to the Defendants by anybody, including late Ibrahim Tigidile, is null and void.

iii. A DECLARATION that the Defendants are trespassers for the unlawful entry into the 620×270 feet of the portion of the land that was initially given to them for farming purpose, which the 1st Plaintiff and her children were cultivating.

The Appellants not only denied liability, but also counter-claimed. In their counter-claim, they sought the following reliefs, amongst others:

a. A declaration that the counter-claimants are entitled to inherit their late father’s farmland with an area of about 1862 feet by 1291 feet lying and situate at Dilpalma, Munga, Hong Local Government Area of Adamawa state.

b. A declaration that the Defendants/counter-claimants are entitled to the disputed land claimed by the defendant to counter-claim with an area of about 950 x 270ft lying and situate at Dilplama, Munga, Hong Local Government Area of Adamawa state.

It was the Respondents’ case at the trial Court that they had inherited the disputed land from their late father, Marja Maksha. The Respondents traced their root of title from Maksha down to 400 years. The Respondents relied on a previous judgment granted in their favour against one Buba Wanzam, whose land shares a boundary with the disputed land.

The Appellants, on the other hand, alleged that they inherited the land in dispute from their late father, who was the first to have cleared the land in dispute for farming by deforestation as early as 1949 and had been in possession until his demise on 30/03/06.

After due consideration of all evidence led by the parties and the counsel submissions, the trial Court decided for the Respondents, granting their reliefs and dismissing the counter-claim of the Appellants.

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and therefore filed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

1. Whether the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not a nullity and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellants and made liable to be set aside by this Court, when same was delivered outside the statutory period of 90 days without reasons for the delay, reasons for the judgment and without evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties.

2. Whether from the totality of the admissible evidence adduced by the parties at the trial Court and on the basis of preponderance of evidence, the learned trial judge was right in granting the Respondents claim and in dismissing the Appellants’ counter claim?

3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is not perverse?

4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in giving a blanket approval to all the reliefs sought by the Respondent without regard to the nature of each relief, the pleadings, the evidence adduced and without quantifying or assessing the damages.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was held to lack merit and was therefore dismissed. The judgment of the trial High Court was consequently affirmed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Circumstance(s) when an appellate Court will interfere with evaluation of evidence made by a trial Court
• APPEAL- PERVERSE FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Guiding principles used by courts to ascertain whether findings of facts of a trial Court are perverse
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with award of damages made by a trial Court
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Effect of evidence that is not denied/challenged/discredited under cross-examination
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT: Time frame within which judgment of the court must be delivered
• the 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
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT: What is expected of an appellate Court when there is a complaint of undue delay in the delivery of a judgment
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT: What must a party complaining of undue delay in the delivery of a judgment establish for him to be entitled to a reversal of the judgment; effect of failure to establish same

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