The application relates to the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court of Kebbi State sitting at Zuru. The respondents application was accompanied with four paragraphed affidavit, the English version of the record of the Upper Sharia Court Zuru, the Notice Appeal and a written address in support of the application.
The respondent herein did not attach the Hausa version of the record of proceedings and judgment of the Upper Sharia Court of Zuru, Kebbi State which he appealed against and to which his application relates with the application.
The respondents application was filed before the High Court Zuru on 15th July 2015 and served on one John Ahmadu who resides at Gommawa on 21st March 2016 instead of serving same on the respondent Danjumma Amadu whose address for service is Ribah Danko/Wasagu Local Government Area, Kebbi State.
In response, the appellant filed a counter affidavit and a written address that raised an issue of jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the respondent’s application and determine same on two grounds thus:
(a) That the record before the High Court was not complete, and
(b) That the respondent before the High Court was not served with the processes. (See pages: 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the transmitted record of appeal).
On 14th June 2016 the lower Court delivered its ruling and granted the respondent’s application. The respondent was not satisfied with the said ruling hence this appeal founded on the following twin grounds:
1. The trial Court erred in law when it struck out the respondent’s written address with the counter affidavit only for the reason that it was filed out of 7 days provided by the civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of Kebbi State, 2011.
PARTICULARS
i. The written address of the respondent only raised issue of jurisdiction of the High Court vis-a-vis the process filed before it.
ii. The High Court held that: “leave was not sought for before it was raised”.
iii. Issue of jurisdiction needs no leave of Court before it can be validly raised.
iv. Rules of Court cannot prescribe how issue of jurisdiction can be raised.
2. The High Court was erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction even when the respondent was not properly served with the applicant’s application.
PARTICULARS
i. The respondent in the applicant’s application is Danjumma Amadu
ii. The process of the Court was served on one John Ahmadu.
…………………….B…………………….
