COA Cases: Grounds For The Grant Of Declaratory Reliefs

By Legalpedia

MR. UMOH EBENEZER THOMPSON V. MR. CHRYSS ESSIEN
suit no: CA/C/12/2019

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2021) Legalpedia (CA)
18120.

Areas Of Law:
Action, Appeal, Court, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure

Summary Of Facts:
The Appellant stated that sometime in early 2014 on two occasions
at his residence, he lent N500, 000.00 and N360, 000.00
respectively to the Respondent and as security for the loan; the
Respondent issued two postdated cheques to him dated 10/08/14 and
10/10/14. However, despite repeated demands, the Respondent has
refused to repay the loan.

This the Respondent denied, stating that he issued the
post-dated cheques to the Appellant when he engaged the services of
the latter for drilling of boreholes and forgot to collect the
cheques from the Appellant after he had paid N1, 800,000.00 into
Appellant’s account and the Appellant never bothered to return the
cheques.

Based on the above fact as stated by the Appellant, he commenced
this action before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, sitting at
Mkpat Enin wherein he claimed against the Respondent for a
declaration that the Respondent was indebted to the Appellant in
the sum of N860,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira),
interest and costs of the action.

The trial Court dismissed the claim of the Appellant and he
immediately approached the Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial
Division by an initial Notice of Appeal containing only the omnibus
Ground of Appeal but later got leave of Court to file additional
Grounds of Appeal.

The amended Notice of Appeal contains four Grounds of
Appeal.

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Ø Whether the Appellant proved that he lent N860,000.00 in two
installments of N500,000.00 and N360,000.00 to the Respondent to be
entitled to the declaration sought.

DECLARATORY
RELIEFS – GROUNDS FOR THE
GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“It is the law that declaratory reliefs are only granted when
credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the
declaratory relief.  The person seeking the declaratory
relief must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief
without relying on the evidence called by the
defendant.  A declaratory relief will not be granted even
on admission by the defendant.  See Anyaru
v. Mandilas Ltd (2007)4 SCNJ
288 and Matanmi & Ors v. Dada & Anor
(2013) LPELR
19929″.  –PER J.
S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A

EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL – WHETHER THE
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL OVER
TWO YEARS AFTER THE ACQUITTAL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED
PERSON

“Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the
Appellant was granted extension of time within which to
appeal.  In both Adili v. State and State
v. Omoyele, the Supreme Court pointed out that under Section 4(3)
of the Act the seven days period within which the prosecutor can
appeal shall not be extended. In the circumstances, this court had
no jurisdiction to extend time within which the Appellant shall
appeal over two years after the acquittal and discharge of the
Respondent. It is trite law that if a court has no jurisdiction to
hear and determine a matter, the proceedings are and remain a
nullity no matter how well conducted and brilliantly decided.
See Daplanlong v. Dariye (2007)8 NWLR
(pt.1036)332. It is therefore not the correct
position of the law as contended by learned counsel for the
Appellant that the order granting the Appellant extension of time
within which to appeal remains valid until set aside. The order
granting extension of time to the Appellant within which to appeal
is a nullity and remains a nullity. It is immaterial that learned
counsel for the Respondent was in court when the application for
extension of time was heard and purportedly granted without
objection. –PER J. S.
ABIRIYI, J.C.A

By Legalpedia

MR. UMOH EBENEZER THOMPSON V. MR. CHRYSS ESSIEN
suit no: CA/C/12/2019

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2021) Legalpedia (CA)
18120.

Areas Of Law:
Action, Appeal, Court, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure

Summary Of Facts:
The Appellant stated that sometime in early 2014 on two occasions
at his residence, he lent N500, 000.00 and N360, 000.00
respectively to the Respondent and as security for the loan; the
Respondent issued two postdated cheques to him dated 10/08/14 and
10/10/14. However, despite repeated demands, the Respondent has
refused to repay the loan.

This the Respondent denied, stating that he issued the
post-dated cheques to the Appellant when he engaged the services of
the latter for drilling of boreholes and forgot to collect the
cheques from the Appellant after he had paid N1, 800,000.00 into
Appellant’s account and the Appellant never bothered to return the
cheques.

Based on the above fact as stated by the Appellant, he commenced
this action before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, sitting at
Mkpat Enin wherein he claimed against the Respondent for a
declaration that the Respondent was indebted to the Appellant in
the sum of N860,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira),
interest and costs of the action.

The trial Court dismissed the claim of the Appellant and he
immediately approached the Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial
Division by an initial Notice of Appeal containing only the omnibus
Ground of Appeal but later got leave of Court to file additional
Grounds of Appeal.

The amended Notice of Appeal contains four Grounds of
Appeal.

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Ø Whether the Appellant proved that he lent N860,000.00 in two
installments of N500,000.00 and N360,000.00 to the Respondent to be
entitled to the declaration sought.

DECLARATORY
RELIEFS – GROUNDS FOR THE
GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“It is the law that declaratory reliefs are only granted when
credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the
declaratory relief.  The person seeking the declaratory
relief must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief
without relying on the evidence called by the
defendant.  A declaratory relief will not be granted even
on admission by the defendant.  See Anyaru
v. Mandilas Ltd (2007)4 SCNJ
288 and Matanmi & Ors v. Dada & Anor
(2013) LPELR
19929″.  –PER J.
S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A

EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL – WHETHER THE
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL OVER
TWO YEARS AFTER THE ACQUITTAL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED
PERSON

“Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the
Appellant was granted extension of time within which to
appeal.  In both Adili v. State and State
v. Omoyele, the Supreme Court pointed out that under Section 4(3)
of the Act the seven days period within which the prosecutor can
appeal shall not be extended. In the circumstances, this court had
no jurisdiction to extend time within which the Appellant shall
appeal over two years after the acquittal and discharge of the
Respondent. It is trite law that if a court has no jurisdiction to
hear and determine a matter, the proceedings are and remain a
nullity no matter how well conducted and brilliantly decided.
See Daplanlong v. Dariye (2007)8 NWLR
(pt.1036)332. It is therefore not the correct
position of the law as contended by learned counsel for the
Appellant that the order granting the Appellant extension of time
within which to appeal remains valid until set aside. The order
granting extension of time to the Appellant within which to appeal
is a nullity and remains a nullity. It is immaterial that learned
counsel for the Respondent was in court when the application for
extension of time was heard and purportedly granted without
objection. –PER J. S.
ABIRIYI, J.C.A