You can’t tie judge’s hands through frivolous appeal, Court slams lawyer

The Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, Tuesday, berated counsel for Triples G. Investment Limited for attempting to “tie the hands of the trial court” by filing a “frivolous appeal” in a pending right-of-occupancy case involving an Abuja property measuring 2.8 hectares.

Justice Okon Abang, who read the leading judgment of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, emphasised that “no matter how intelligent the appellant is, the appellant cannot command the impossible,” having filed incompetent grounds of appeal.

The landmark judgment arose from a pending dispute before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory concerning the alleged ownership of Plot 1851 within Sabon Lugbe, Abuja, measuring approximately 2.8 hectares.

The appeal was filed by Triples G. Investment Limited against Olabode Olaleri and another in an appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/1261/2024.

Despite initiating the suit, the appellant, on February 27, 2024, challenged the competence of the respondents’ counterclaim by filing a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim.

The legal team of Triples G. argued that the issue of ownership and title to the disputed plot had allegedly been settled in favour of the appellant in an earlier case filed by the appellant against the FCT Minister and the FCDA.

However, those claims were denied by the respondents.

In its ruling, the trial court held that the parties and subject matter of the previous suit referenced by the appellant were different from the parties and subject matter in the instant suit.

The trial court further held that the respondents herein were not privies of the FCDA and the Minister of the FCT.

The trial court also held that there was nothing in the judgment relied upon by the appellant indicating that the appellant was the owner of the plot in issue.

The trial court subsequently dismissed the objection for lacking merit.

Reviewing the developments at the trial court, Justice Abang held that the ruling of the lower court was “interlocutory”, and therefore did not necessitate the “indecent haste” to appeal demonstrated by counsel for the appellant.

“My Lords, I think this interlocutory appeal was dead on arrival. I so hold.

“The decision of the trial court dismissing the appellant’s objection challenging the competence of the respondents’ counterclaim is an interlocutory decision.

“An interlocutory decision of the trial court. It is not a final decision of the trial court. I so hold,” he added.

The Court of Appeal observed that the two grounds of appeal in the appellant’s original notice of appeal were grounds of mixed law and fact.

“Counsel should look at the law before you file an appeal. We have a lot of work here. Don’t just come here as if we are a Magistrates’ Court,” Abang said.

The learned jurist maintained that the appellant required leave of the trial court, sought and obtained within 14 days, to file a valid appeal.

“The appellant misled this court. On 30th June, to amend an incompetent notice of appeal.

“The original notice of appeal is incompetent and cannot be amended. I so hold,” the judge held.

He said that while the right of appeal is statutory and constitutional, it is not conferred on an appellant through the imagination or assumption of counsel.

“Notwithstanding the position of counsel at the bar, you can’t go on appeal on your imagination,” he said, adding that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on its merits.

“This appeal is like beating a dead horse to rise and walk. It is not possible.

“No matter how intelligent the appellant is, the appellant cannot command the impossible. I so hold,” Abang ruled.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal proceeded to make findings on the merits of the appeal.

The judge considered the instant appeal an abuse of the process of the court.

“The appellant, as a claimant, cannot use a plea of res judicata as a sword to make a claim against the respondent while insisting that estoppel would operate in the case to bar the respondent.

“The appeal is clearly frivolous, and it was deliberately filed to tie the hands of the trial court from hearing the case,” Abang said.

He consequently described the appeal as a “reckless” and “hopeless” application.

In another decision delivered on the same day, Justice Abang dismissed a Kubwa property appeal while ordering the restoration of the former occupier.

The appeal, marked CA/ABJ/156/2024, was filed by Abdulrahman Dimis against Ime Joseph, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT), and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).

Justice Abang held that the trial court was right to have ordered the appellant to vacate the property.

He stressed that Dimis had no contractual entitlement to House 5, Block 300B, the property occupied by Joseph, and observed that proper due diligence before the purchase would have revealed the circumstances surrounding the occupation and ownership of the disputed property.

The developments spotlight the fact that legal exploits are based on awareness and proper application of relevant laws and guidelines governing court filings and the merits of a case.