ONYEKWULUJE V. ANIMASHAUN (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute over land known as No. 23, New Market Road, Onitsha. The property originally belonged to late Badaru Asuni Animashaun, who was said to have acquired it from the Mgbeleke family of Onitsha under a kola tenancy. After his death intestate, the property devolved upon his heirs as family property. The respondents, acting for themselves and as administrators of the deceased’s estate, challenged a purported deed of lease granted in 1975 to the appellants. They alleged that the lease had been executed without the knowledge, consultation or consent of the principal members of the Animashaun family.

The respondents commenced an action at the High Court of Onitsha seeking declarations that the lease was invalid, a declaration that occupation under it was unlawful, and possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the trial court’s decision. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which remitted it for rehearing. Following rehearing, the Court of Appeal again made orders adverse to the appellants, prompting the present appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents’ action and appeal were competent, having regard to the fact that the originating processes were signed in the names of law firms rather than identifiable legal practitioners.
2. Whether the purported lease was valid under the law applicable to the estate of a Yoruba person who died intestate.
3. Whether the consent of the head and principal members of the family was required and, if so, whether it was obtained.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal properly interfered with the trial court’s evaluation of evidence.
5. Whether the appellants’ failure to call the makers of the lease justified an adverse presumption under section 149(d) of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction depends upon compliance with both substantive and procedural law. A court cannot validly adjudicate upon a matter commenced by an incompetent originating process. Applying sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1962, the Court held that a law firm is not itself a legal practitioner capable of signing an originating process. The name and identity of the individual legal practitioner who signed the process must be ascertainable. Consequently, the claim signed in the name of “Ezebuilo Umeadi & Co.” and the notice of appeal signed in the name of “S. A. Animashaun and Company” were fundamentally defective.

The Court also affirmed that the personal law of a deceased person governs the devolution and administration of his intestate estate. Since late Badaru Animashaun was a Yoruba person, Yoruba customary law applied, notwithstanding that the land was situated in Onitsha and had originally been held under kola tenancy. Under Yoruba customary law, a sale, lease or other disposition of family land requires the participation or consent of the family head and the principal members of the family. Consent must be direct and affirmative; mere knowledge of the transaction is insufficient. In the absence of the required consent, the transaction is void ab initio.

Further, the appellants, who relied on the disputed lease, were expected to call its makers, including Raji Babatunde Animashaun and Henry Afolabi Lardner. Their failure to do so entitled the court to presume under section 149(d) of the Evidence Act that the withheld evidence would have been unfavourable to their case. The testimony of the makers was particularly important because the existence, authenticity and authority underlying the lease were material issues.

Court Findings

The Court accepted that the respondents’ evidence showed that the family had not been consulted and had not consented to the lease. The Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to interfere with the trial court’s findings because the evidence had been wrongly evaluated and the resulting conclusions were perverse. Although an appellate court ordinarily does not disturb findings of fact made by a trial court that has properly evaluated the evidence, intervention is justified where there is misdirection, a failure to consider material evidence, or an incorrect application of law.

The Supreme Court stressed that jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised by any party or by the court suo motu, even for the first time before the Supreme Court. Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity from the beginning, regardless of how carefully the evidence was heard or how well the issues were determined.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional point. The Supreme Court held that the defective originating claim and the appeal founded upon it could not support valid proceedings. The respondents’ action at the trial court, the appeal at the Court of Appeal and the present appeal were struck out. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces three important principles of Nigerian law. First, compliance with the formal requirements for signing originating processes is a condition precedent to jurisdiction. Secondly, the personal law of a deceased intestate governs his estate, and Yoruba customary law requires the consent of the family head and principal members before family land can validly be transferred. Thirdly, a party relying on a document must ordinarily call its maker where the document’s authenticity or material contents are in issue. The case also clarifies the limited but important circumstances in which an appellate court may revisit factual findings made by a trial court.