Before Their Lordships
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. CHUKWUJEKWU SYLVESTER ADIKWULU
2. PETER ADIKWULU
3. EMEKA ADIKWULU Appellant(s)
AND
OLISA EMEKA CHIKEND Respondent(s)
…………………….A…………………….
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Anambra State Customary Court of Appeal sitting at Awka, coram: Hon. Justice S.N. Okoye, Hon. Justice Jude Obiora and Hon. Justice C.E. Chukwurah delivered on Monday the 14th April 2014, wherein the Respondent’s appeal was allowed by Court below after striking out issue A and resolving issues B and C in favour of the Respondent herein (the Appellant at the lower Court).
The Appellants were dissatisfied with that decision and thus filed a Notice of Appeal on 30th June 2014 premised upon a lone ground of Appeal thus:
The Learned Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal of Anambra State erred in Law when they failed to dismiss the Appellant’s Appeal by determining, without jurisdiction, issue ‘A’ which did not arise from ground (1) on denial of fair hearing and came to a perverse decision occasioning a gross miscarriage of Justice.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The competence and jurisdiction of the Court was waived by entertaining issue ‘A’ touching on burden of proving that there was a pledge of the land in dispute, not related to Appellant’s ground (I) centered on denial of fair hearing.
b. A successful ground on denial of fair hearing can only lead to a new trial and not awarding the case to the Appellant who was never a Plaintiff in the trial Court.
c. An issue for determination must arise from the ground of appeal and not at large.
d. Jurisdiction is fundamental and very radical which can be raised at any time.
The Appellants distilled a lone issue for determination from the lone ground of appeal thus:
Whether the Judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal Anambra State predicated on issue ‘A’ which did not arise from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal filed on 3/12/2013, without offering the APPELLANTS an opportunity of hearing is not perverse? The learned counsel for the Appellant P. S. Mwajagu, Esq endeavored to reproduce the three (3) grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal by the Respondent at the Court below, filed on 3rd December 2013 thus:
i) The Customary Court erred in law when it relied and upheld the decision of the Customary Arbitration of Ihuolum/Umunu family meeting which denied fair hearing to late Nze Umeadi Chukwendu. ii) The trial Customary Court misdirected itself in law when it held that there was a customary pledge of the land in dispute by late Onyebueke Adikwulu to late Sgt Simeon Adikwulu notwithstanding that the essential elements of a Customary pledge were not proved by the Plaintiffs.
iii) The judgment is against the weight of evidence before the Court. (See: Pages 138 – 140 of tile Records). It was contended for the Appellant that the issue upon which the lower Court based its judgment could not have arisen from the Respondent’s ground (1) of his Notice of Appeal, which is reproduced thus:
Furthermore, there is no evidence from the Respondent as Plaintiff at the trial Court to show that he was put in to possession of the Land in dispute based on the purported Customary pledge. I therefore, hold that there is no valid pledge under Customary Law in this matter as the Respondent failed to adduce evidence in proof of pledge of land under Customary Land.
The lower Court, in the lead judgment by Hon Jude Obiorah, seems to be conscious of what it was doing when it stated as follows:
“It is now settled that a ground of appeal challenging the judgment of a
…………………….B…………………….
