JEU V. DOLO (2011)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute concerning the customary selection and installation of a village head of Lakoro in Adamawa State. The parties were members of the Bwonjaba ruling family. The appellants, who were plaintiffs before the Adamawa State High Court, contended that their first appellant had been selected as the proper candidate for the stool. They argued that the Bwonjaba family was divided into two branches: one branch having the exclusive right to produce the village head and the other having responsibility for selecting or acting as kingmakers. On that basis, they maintained that the first respondent, who allegedly belonged to the Bulama or kingmaker branch, was not eligible for the chieftaincy.

The appellants sought declarations that their candidate had been duly selected, that the first respondent was ineligible, an injunction restraining his installation, and an order directing the Traditional Rulers Council to install the first appellant. The respondents denied that the Bwonjaba family was divided in the manner alleged and maintained that any suitable member of the family could aspire to become village head. The trial court rejected the appellants’ case and held, among other things, that the first respondent was a member of the Bwonjaba ruling house.

Judgment was delivered by Oluoti J. on 2018? No—the record states that judgment was delivered on 2008-01-30, after final addresses had been concluded on 2007-03-07. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, principally challenging the delay in delivering judgment and the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence.

Issues

1. Whether delivery of judgment 10 months and 23 days after final addresses, contrary to the 90-day period in section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution, invalidated the judgment or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether the trial court was wrong to find material contradictions in the evidence of the appellants’ witnesses and to hold that paragraph 13 of the statement of claim was not proved.
3. Whether the appellants proved their entitlement to the declarations and injunctive reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that failure to deliver judgment within the constitutional 90-day period was reprehensible and constituted non-compliance with section 294(1) of the Constitution. However, section 294(5) expressly prevents a judgment from being set aside solely for that reason unless the complaining party establishes that the delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Miscarriage of justice is not presumed from delay; the appellant must show that the delay probably affected the outcome of the case. After reviewing the record, the court found that the trial judge had properly evaluated the evidence and that the appellants had not demonstrated any prejudicial effect caused by the delay.

The appellate court further held that it was entitled, although not a trial court, to inspect the record of proceedings to determine whether findings made by the trial court were supported by the evidence. Evidence is contradictory where one piece asserts or affirms the opposite of another on a material point. Where a party’s witnesses give materially inconsistent accounts, the evidence on that point becomes unreliable and may properly be rejected.

The court also reaffirmed that parties are bound by their pleadings. Evidence that departs from, or contradicts, the pleaded case goes to no issue and must be disregarded. A party must lead credible evidence to establish the material averments on which its claim depends; unproved pleadings do not shift any evidential burden to the opposing party.

Court Findings

The appellants’ pleaded case was that the Bulama endorsed their candidate while the Nakatebe refused to endorse him because he was acting in that office. Their evidence, however, did not consistently support that case. One witness testified that the Bulama and Nakatebe signed the selection document and that the candidate’s name was taken to the former Chief of Longuda, with the customary rites performed. Another witness stated that the name was taken to the Traditional Council, which merely asked the parties to wait until the Chief returned from hospital, after which he died. These accounts materially differed from each other and from paragraph 13 of the statement of claim.

The court concluded that the appellants had not proved the essential customary steps required for a valid selection, including the endorsement or acceptance of the candidate by the relevant kingmakers. Their evidence therefore failed to establish the pleaded claim that the first appellant had been duly selected and was entitled to installation.

The appellants also failed to prove that the Bwonjaba family was divided into an exclusive ruling branch and a separate Bulama branch. Evidence from one of their own witnesses indicated that both the plaintiffs and the first defendant belonged to the Bwonjaba ruling house. The trial court was consequently right to find that the first respondent was eligible to aspire to the stool.

The court criticised the imprecise numbering of witnesses and careless spelling of names in counsel’s brief, observing that such errors could cause confusion in the evaluation of evidence and in the hearing of an appeal. Counsel were reminded to identify witnesses serially and accurately.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Adamawa State High Court in Suit No. ADSN/1/2000, delivered on 2008-01-30. The appellants were ordered to pay costs of N40,000.

Significance

The decision illustrates the operation of section 294(1) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution: a judgment delivered outside the prescribed period is procedurally improper, but it is not automatically void on appeal. The party challenging it must prove an actual miscarriage of justice. The case also emphasises the importance of consistency between pleadings and evidence, the rejection of material contradictions, and the necessity of proving customary rules and traditional succession procedures with credible evidence. It remains relevant to chieftaincy disputes and civil appeals involving alleged misdirection in the assessment of testimony.