ALHAJI MOHAMMED KARAYE V. LEVI WIKE & ORS (2019)

Background

Alhaji Mohammed Karaye was a founding member of United Livestock Dealers Enterprises, an association operating at Mile 3 Market, Diobu, Port Harcourt. He served as vice-chairman between 1975 and 1983 and later became the association’s treasurer. The dispute arose from allegations concerning his stewardship of the association’s money and property. The respondents alleged that Karaye failed to account for N9,353.10 said to have been in his possession and that, after receiving N200 to secure the association’s interest in a parcel of land, he obtained the land-office receipt in his own name rather than in the association’s name.

Following an audit and while criminal proceedings for alleged theft were pending before a Magistrates’ Court, the respondents expelled Karaye from the association. Karaye commenced proceedings at the High Court of Rivers State seeking declarations that the expulsion was unlawful, unconstitutional, contrary to natural justice and of no effect. He also sought a declaration that the disputed land belonged jointly to the parties, an order partitioning the land, an alternative injunction protecting his use of the land, and N600,000 in general damages.

The trial court granted only the declaration invalidating the expulsion and refused the remaining reliefs. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, while Karaye filed a cross-appeal challenging the refusal of his other claims. The Court of Appeal dismissed the respondents’ appeal but declined to consider the cross-appeal, reasoning that it would be academic because Karaye had already been declared a member of the association. Karaye appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to refuse to consider the issues raised in the cross-appeal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the injunctive relief and other reliefs sought by the appellant.
3. Whether the respondents could raise, for the first time before the Supreme Court, an objection concerning the capacity or competence of the action.
4. Whether Karaye was entitled to general damages despite the finding that he had failed to account for association funds and had acted improperly concerning the land receipt.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a cross-appeal is a separate and independent appeal. It is not an appendage of the main appeal and must be considered on its own merits. An intermediate appellate court has a duty to determine all material issues properly placed before it, unless it intends to order a retrial and considers that addressing those issues could prejudice the fresh hearing. The Court of Appeal therefore erred by treating the cross-appeal as academic merely because the principal declaration had been affirmed.

The Court further distinguished between alternative claims and claims that are merely additional or consequential. Although a court need not consider an alternative claim after granting the substantive relief, the injunction sought by Karaye was not an alternative to the declaration that his expulsion was invalid. It was intended to protect and enforce that declaration. A consequential order is one that flows naturally and directly from the court’s decision and is made to give practical effect to the judgment. Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to make such orders even where the precise consequential relief was not separately claimed, provided that it is necessary to protect an established right and is consistent with the case litigated.

The Supreme Court also held that the respondents’ objection to the capacity in which the action was brought was incompetent. The objection concerned the competence of the proceedings at the trial court or the appeal before the Court of Appeal and should have been raised at the appropriate earlier stage. Under section 233 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, a fresh issue could not be introduced before the Supreme Court without an appropriate ground of appeal and leave of court.

Court Findings

The Court found that the declaration setting aside Karaye’s expulsion did not, by itself, provide an executory remedy. A declaratory judgment merely pronounces the existence of a right; it does not ordinarily contain an enforceable command against the opposing party. In the circumstances, an injunction was necessary to give the declaration practical force and prevent the respondents from frustrating or ignoring it. The Supreme Court accordingly ordered that the respondents, their agents, privies and servants be restrained from preventing Karaye and those acting through him from using the association’s land and facilities or otherwise interfering with his rights as a member.

Once that consequential injunction was granted, the claims for partition of the land became spent or unnecessary. The claim for general damages, however, was refused. The evidence showed that Karaye had not accounted for the sum identified in the audit report and had not satisfactorily rebutted the allegation relating to the land receipt. Although his expulsion was invalid because it occurred without proper procedural fairness while criminal proceedings were pending, the Court held that he could not obtain equitable relief in the form of damages while relying on conduct regarded as fraudulent, inequitable and unconscionable. The equitable maxim that a person who comes to equity must come with clean hands was applied.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed in part. The Supreme Court set aside the refusal to consider the cross-appeal and granted the consequential injunctive relief supporting the declaration that Karaye remained a member of the association. The claims for partition and general damages were not granted, and the parties were ordered to bear their respective costs. The judgment reflects the final orders of the majority, although Abba-Aji JSC expressed a contrary view on the injunctive relief while concurring in the partial dismissal of the appeal.

Significance

The decision is important for appellate practice and the law of remedies. It confirms that an intermediate appellate court must decide every material issue raised in a properly constituted cross-appeal. It also illustrates the difference between an alternative relief and a consequential order. A declaratory judgment may require an accompanying injunction where, without that order, the successful party could not enjoy or enforce the right declared by the court. At the same time, the case demonstrates that invalid procedural conduct by an association does not automatically entitle a claimant to damages, particularly where the claimant’s own conduct is tainted by failure to account for funds or other inequitable behaviour.