CASE OF THE DAY : OLADELE OJOGBEDE & ANOR. V CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION ABUJA & ORS

?

?

APPEAL NO: CA/L/488/2018

Area Of Law

Action, Appeal, Constitutional Law, Court, Jurisdiction, Legal Personality, Limitation Law, Locus Standi, Practice And Procedure, Statute Of Limitation, Words And Phrases

?

?

Summary Of Facts

?

The Appellants, herein via an originating summons sought a declaration that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Owodunni vs. The Registered Trustees Of The Celestial Church Of Christ (supra) and The Registered Trustee Of The Celestial Church Of Christ (Nigeria Diocese) Vs. Godwin Bolanle Shonekan (supra), the 1st Defendant’s reconstitution of the Board of Trustees of the Celestial Church of Christ (Nigeria Diocese) is illegal, null and void and of no legal effect, a declaration that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants are not competent to be Trustees of the 2nd Defendant, their appointment having been made contrary to the extant Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ (Nigeria Diocese), 1980, and as such, their appointment is null, void and of no legal effect, an order of the court striking out the names of the afore mentioned Defendants from the CAC Certificate No. 460455 with Reference No. CAC/IT/No. 489 of 23/09/2011 and for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from parading themselves as Trustees of the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd – 7th Defendants/Respondents at the trial Court filed a preliminary objection, wherein they prayed the trial court for an order striking out or dismissing the suit on grounds of lack of locus standi and being statute barred. In a considered ruling, the trial Court upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit on the ground that the suit was incompetent. The Appellant dissatisfied with the ruling filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

?

?

?????????

?

?

?

?

HELD:

?

Appeal Dismissed

?

?

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

?

??Whether, on the totality of the evidence adduced by the appellant, before the lower court, he proved his claims on the preponderance of evidence, to warrant entering the judgment of the lower court in his favour?

?

?

?

?

?

RATIONES

?

CAUSE OF ACTION- WHEN IS A CAUSE OF ACTION STATUTE BARRED?

?

"As a necessary prelude, where a statute prescribes a time-bar within which an action should be commenced, such legislation bears the name of limitation law. If an aggrieved person exhibits tardiness by suing his wrong doer outside the statutorily allowed time-bracket, his action is usually declared as statute-barred. Thus, a cause of action is statute-barred when no proceedings can be brought to enforce it because the period laid down by the limitation law has expired by effluxion of time, see Egbe v. Adefarasin(No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 47;?Nasir v. C.S.C., Kano State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253;CotecnaInt’ Ltd. v. Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 346; A-G., Adamawa State v. A-G., Fed. (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 515; Mulima v. Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1432) 160; Ibrahim v. Lawal (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1489); N.R.M.A & F.C. v. Johnson (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 247; Daniel v. Ayala (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 25." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LIMITATION LAW - RATIONALE FOR LIMITATION LAW

?

"The raison d’etre for limitation law are to ginger up aggrieved persons to be vigilant, to discourage cruel actions and to preserve the evidence by which a defendant will defend the action, see Aremo II v. Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572;Olagunju v. PHCN Plc. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 113;Lafia L.G. v. Gov., Nasarawa State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 943; Sulgrave Holdings Inc. v. FGN (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 309; Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (Nig) Ltd. (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 42; Awolola v. Gov., Ekiti State (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 247; Obazee v. Ekhosuehi (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 245; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

STATUTE BARRED ACTION- DETERMINATION OF WHEN AN ACTION IS STATUTE-BARRED

?

"The orthodox judicial formula for gauging limitation legislation is simple. A court is enjoined to examine the filed writ of summons/the originating process or statement of claim, either of which will showcase when the cause of action was disclosed in it, with the period stipulated in the limitation statute within which to sue. If the date of filing in the matter is beyond the period allocated by the limitation law, then it is statute-barred. Conversely, if the time limit comes within that permitted by that law, then it is not statute-barred, see Woherem v. Emeruwa(2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 398;Aremo II v. Adekanya(supra);Elebanjo v. Dawodu(2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76; Williams v. Williams (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095); Hassan v. Aliyu(2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 574; Nweke v. UNIZIK, Awka (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598)454; Saki v. APC (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1706) 515." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION- DETERMINATION OF THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO LIMITATION LAW

?

"Nota bene, the case-law has endorsed a statement of claim as the major process to be used by the court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction in relation to limitation law, see Akine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446; A.D.H. Ltd. v. A.T. Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 989) 635; Oni v. Cadbury (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Yar’adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124; Isah v. INEC (supra); Lau v. PDP (supra); Azubuogu v. Oranezi (supra); Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; A.-G, Fed. v. A.-G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420; F.U.T., Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176; A.-G., Lagos State v. Eko Hotels (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 518." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

ORIGINATING SUMMONS- STATUS OF AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS

?

"In an action commenced by dint of originating summons, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION OF COURT- DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

?

"It must be stressed, that it is only a plaintiff’s statement of claim or affidavit, not a statement of defence or a counter-affidavit, that is relevant in determining the jurisdiction of a court, see lzenkwe V. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 301; UBA Plc. v. BTL Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 361; Ngere V. Okuruket ‘XIV’ (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440." PER. O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

PLEA OF LIMITATION LAW- EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF LIMITATION LAW

?

"A successful plea of limitation law, as a shield, by an opposing party occasions two harmful effects against a claimant’s action. Firstly, he becomes a destitute of the right of action and judicial relief. In a word, it extinguishes his cause of action, see Egbe v. Adefarasin (No.2) (supra); Nasir v. C.S.C., Kano State (supra); Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 1) (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 407; INEC v. Ogbadibo LG. (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 74; Okafor v. B.D.U., Jos Branch (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 385.?Secondly, the court ceases to be crowned with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain his action. See Owners of the MV "Arebella" v. NAIC (2008)10 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 182; Olagunju v. PHCN Plc. (supra); JE.C. Inv. Ltd. v. Brawal Line Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 495; INEC v. Enasito (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 63; Toyin v. Musa (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1676) 22." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LIMITATION LAW- RATIONALE FOR LIMITATION LAW.

?

"For the purposes of limitation statutes, a cause of action begins to run when a party becomes aware of an erosion of his right and there exists a person to be sued (the violator) to protect the encroached right, see Woherem v. Emenuwa (supra);Owie v. Ighiwie (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 184; UBN Plc v. Umeoduagu (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 352; Okafor v. B.D.U., Jos Branch (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 385; Asaboro v. Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 42; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66." PER. O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT – WHETHER SECTION 2 OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT IS APPLICABLE TO NON- PUBLIC OFFICERS

?

"In Sylva v. INEC (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) 576 at 619 and 620, Ngwuta, JSC (of the blessed memory), incisively, declared:

…From the appellant’s argument, the defence under the Act is restricted to a public officer and not available to any other person even if that person is sued with the public officer.?With profound respect, this is not the intendment of the Act.?It is a fallacy borne out of a skewed interpretation of the title of the Act: "Public Officers Protection Act" without reference to the provision itself.

?

The expression "against any person for any act" aptly demonstrates the falsity of the appellant’s contention that the defence under the Act is limited to a class of persons to which the 3rd respondent does not belong.?Appellant does not dispute the right of the 1st respondent to raise the defence under the Act. The respondents stand or fall together. The result of the defence being raised by the 1st respondent would have enured to all the respondents as defendants.

?

In the circumstance, I do not see any reason why it would make a difference who among the respondents raised the defence.?It would have been a different matter if the 3rd respondent had raised the defence in a purported status of a public officer. See Rufus Alli Momoh v. Afolabi Okewale & Anor. (1977) 6 SC 81 at 92.

?

…It is my view that the plea could be properly raised by any of the respondents for his benefit and the benefit of the co-respondents.

?

Indisputably, the imports of this magisterial pronouncement in the ex-cathedra authority are crystal clear.?It makes it abundantly clear, in an unmistakable term, that the provision of section 2 (a) of POPA does not discriminate against non-public officers in its application.?It grants an unbridled licence to a non-public officer to take benefit under the shelter of the provision as a shield to insulate himself against any action instituted in contravention of it. Besides, where there are multiple parties in a matter, any of them has the liberty to?from the wide umbrella of the defence in the provision for his benefit and that of his co-parties. In eharvestssence, in a multi-party action, a defendant can employ the provision notwithstanding any waiver by one of the parties.?In effect, the decision in Sylva v. INEC (supra), a final one at that, with due reverence, exposes the poverty of the appellants’ alluring argument on this limb. Their contention on the limb is impotent to impregnate the issue with success." PER O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

PERIOD OF LIMITATION – WHETHER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS OPERATIONAL IN THE PRESENCE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD

?

"The settled position of law is that doctrine of statute-bar is deflated in the face of allegation or proof of fraud or fraudulent concealment or breach of trust. The law makes it unconscionable for statute-bar to operate where fraud lives. Thus, where fraud is involved, the time limitation period in limitation legislation will cease to have any effervescence, see Adekeye v. Akin – Olugbade (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 214/(1987) 2 NSCC 865; UBA v. B.T. L. Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 61; Mulima v. Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1432) 160; Okafor v. B.D.U., Jos Branch (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 385." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LOCUS STANDI – EFFECT OF THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF LOCUS STANDI IN A PARTY

?

"It is trite law that the absence or presence of locus standi in a party will divest or infuse jurisdiction into a court to discountenance or entertain a matter before it, see Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 349/(2005) 30 WRN 1; A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G. Fed (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin/Exec., Estate Abacha v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310 1370; Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Adebayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; Okwu v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1501) 120; Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452; Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 210; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666)518; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NELR (Pt. 1672) 422 (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LOCUS STANDI- MEANING AND ESSENCE OF LOCUS STANDI

?

??"From an etymological perspective, the cliché, locus standi, traces its ancestry to Latin Language which means: "place of standing".?In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority, see INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra). Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants who have no interest in matters before it, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562; Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230.?For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra). Again, that he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations are in the danger of being infringed on, see Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 542; Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra)."?PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

FACTS – IMPORTANCE OF FACTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF A CASE

?

"The importance of facts in determination of cases cannot be over emphasised. Facts are the forerunners and arrowhead of the law. They act like magnets with the potential to completely turnaround the fortune or misfortune of a case.?In the Roman days of the law, they were couched as: Ex facto oritur jus – law has its offspring on the fact, see A.-G., Anambra State v. A. – G., Fed. (2005) 131 LRCN 235 at 2426/(2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 931) 572 at 638 – 639, Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 365." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISTIC PERSON- MEANING OF JURISTIC PERSON

?

"By way of prefatory observations, a juristic person is an entity armed with the capacity to ventilate his/its complaints in judicio. Generally, it is only natural persons, id est, human beings and artificial persons, such as body corporate/corporation, an artificial being which is invisible, intangible and exist only in the contemplation of the law, that are imbued with the capacity to sue and be sued in law court. The jural units, which the law has cloaked with the garment of legal personality, are: human beings, incorporated companies, corporate sole with perpetual succession, trade unions, partnerships and friendly societies. No action can be commenced by or against any party except a natural person(s) save such a party has been accorded by a statute, expressly or impliedly, or by common law, either a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued or right to sue or be sued by that name. Where either of the parties to an action is not a legal person, capable of exercising legal rights and obligations in law, it is plagued by incompetence and liable to be struck out on account of want of legal personality, see Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. General Manager G.B. Olivant Ltd. (1961) 2 SCNLR 317; Kate Ent. Ltd. v. Daewoo Nig. Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116; Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.105) 558; Ataguba& Co. v. Gura (Nig) Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429; A. –G., Anambra State v. A. –G., Fed (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin./Exec., Estate, Abacha v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 97; SLB Consortium Ltd. v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317; M.M.A. Inc. v N.M.A. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 506; Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; BB. Apugo& Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Interdrill (Nig) Ltd v. U.B.A. Plc (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1581) 52; Dairo v. Regd. Trustees, T. A. O.., Lagos (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 62; Bajehson v.?Otiko (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 138; Socio-Political Research Dev. v. Min., FCT (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 313; Moses v. NBA (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 59; Persons, Name Unknown v. Sahris Int’l Ltd. (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1689) 203." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LEGAL PERSONALITY- HOW TO ACQUIRE LEGAL PERSONALITY

?

"It is settled, beyond any per adventure of doubt that one of the critical ways to acquire juristic personality is through statutory acceptance and recognition. A statute bestows a legal personality on a party thus: (a) under the name by which it may sue or be sued or (b) a right to sue or be sued by that name, see Lion of Africa Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Esan (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 197; Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. v. University of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 323) 631; Socio-Political Research Dev. v. Min., FCT (supra)." PER O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

LEGAL PERSONALITY- WHETHER THE ISSUES OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURT.

?

"More importantly, as already noted at the dawn of this issue, the issue of juristic personality is a quintessence of jurisdictional question which borders on the jurisdiction of court.?It admits of no argument, that parties cannot by consent, acquiescence, connivance, collusion, compromise, indolence, waiver or any guise bestow jurisdiction on a court where none exists nor oust it of jurisdiction in the presence of one, see Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unltd. v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346; Okolo v. UBN (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87; Ukpong v. Comm. for Finance (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 187; Gafar v. Govt., Kwara State (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1024) 375; Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unltd. v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Kawawu v. PDP (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 420; Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State v. Aguele (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 369; FRN v. Solomon (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 201." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION - MEANING OF JURISDICTION

?

"Jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajamole v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Untltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IM SLR 300; Ebhodagbe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1; Nduul v. Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 548." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION OF COURT- WHEN IS A COURT INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MATTER?

?

"A court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: "1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction", see Modukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Daro v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 440. The three ingredients must co-exist in order to infuse jurisdiction into a court." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION OF COURT- SOURCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURTS

?

"In the eyes of the law, subsidiary legislations do not bestow jurisdiction on a court of law.?Source of jurisdiction of courts is statutory. It is the constitution and legislations that do, see Dada v. Ogunremi (1962) 2 SCNLR 417; State v. Onagoruwa (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 1; Afribank (Nig.) Plc. v. Akwara (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 974) 619; Onuorah v. KRPC Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393; Mailantarki v. Tongo (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69; Mainstreet Bank Capital Ltd. v. Nig RE (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1640) 423; Nduul v. Wayo (supra); Okorocha v. UBA Plc (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1649) 441; APC v. Umar (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1675) 564." PER O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION OF COURT- WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT CAN BE CURTAILED BY BREACHES OF RULES OF COURT

?

"It can be gleaned from the above cardinal principles of law, that the jurisdiction of a court traces its paternity to the constitution and statutes. In this perspective, the jurisdiction of a court, allocated/bequeathed to it by either the constitution or by an enactment, cannot be curtailed by breaches of rules of court. The Nigerian Constitution, as amended, the fons et origo of our laws, holds dominion over rules of court that provide support for administration of justice. Also, the provisions of statutes lord it over rules of court. Rules of court, which are designed to render support, fast-track and nourish the smooth administration of justice, take a bow to their overriding superiority whenever there is a conflict between them, see Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 554; Kato v. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 216; Nasir v. C.S.C., Kano State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253; SLB Consortium v. NNPC (supra); Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc. (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1; Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (supra). In keeping with this law, the provision of order 29 rule 4(a) of the FHC Rules, 2009 must take to flight on confrontation with the constitutional and statutory provisions that allocated jurisdiction to the lower court. This second fiddle principle tames as well as demolishes this defence." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

JURISDICTION OF A COURT- IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION OF A COURT

?

"That is not all Jurisdiction is the lifeline, linchpin, fulcrum, touchstone and spinal cord of any adjudication. It oxygenates any proceeding. In the premises of this enviable olympian status in adjudication, issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time before any court, trial or appellate, see Alioke v. Oye (2018) (Pt. 1651) 247; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66; Sulaiman v. FRN (2020) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1755) 180.?It can be raised in any manner, even viva voce (orally) and without leave of court, see APC v. Lere (2020 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. It can be raised suo motu by any court without any irritation to the law, see Alikor v. Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331." PER O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

RULES OF COURT- WHETHER THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT RULES CAN NULLIFY THE PROCEEDINGS

?

"Lastly, for the sake of ex abundanti cautela, I will invite and deploy the provision of order 51 rule 1 (1) of the FHC Rules, 2009. I will, at the risk of verbosity but borne out of necessity, cull it out from its quiet abode in the FHC Rules, 2009. It states:

Where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceeding or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceeding, there has by reason of anything done or left undone, been failure to comply with the requirements of these Rules, whether in respect of time, place, manner form or content or in any other respect, the failure may be treated as an irregularity and if so treated, will not nullify the proceedings, or any document, judgment or order therein.

?

The provision, which harbours no ambiguity, enjoins the court, in the interest of justice, to waive a party’s blunders with the requirements of the FHC Rules as to time, place, manner or form and consign the same to the province of irregularity.?Thus, the provision constitutes an inbuilt safeguard aimed to neutralise the caustic effects of non-compliance with some provisions of the Rules. It is axiomatic that the provision confers on the court the discretionary power to treat wide range of failures to conform to the Rules as an irregularity, see Dingyadi v. INEC (no. 1) (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 1; Ukachukwu v. PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435) 134; Michael v. BON (2015) 12 NWLR (Pt.1473) 370; Gov., Zamfara State v. Gyalange (2013) 8 (NWLR) (Pt. 1357) 462). Famfa Oil Ltd. v. A. – G., Fed. (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 453; N.B.C. Plc. v. Ubani (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1398) 421; Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527; Lafferi (Nig.) Ltd. v. NAL Merchant Bank Plc(2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1478) 68; Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 52; Poroye v. Makafi (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 91; KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Aloma (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 473." PER. O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

RULES OF COURT- IMPORTANCE OF RULES OF COURT

?

"It must be placed on record, apace, that the rules of court are handmaids of the law and it will be infra dig for the law to worship them.?Their mission is to assist and facilitate the administration of justice by lubricating its stringent procedures.?In this wise, their object is displaced when they are employed as hiccups along the thorny, rigorious and undulating terrain to quick attainment of justice.?That will dethrone their aim in the wheel of administration of justice." PER. O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- EFFECT AND MEANING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

?

"A preliminary objection is a specie of objection which, if sustained by a court, will render further proceedings in a matter unnecessary, see Abe v. UniIlorin(2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 183; APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531; Jim-Jaja v. C.P, Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225. For this reason, the law commands the court to deal first with a preliminary objection when raised in any proceedings, see Uwazurike v. A.-G., Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035)1; B.A.S.F. (Nig.) Ltd v. Faith Enterprises Ltd. (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 104; SPDCN Ltd v4’madi (2011)14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157; FBN Plc v. T.S.A. md. Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247; Okereke v. James (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 339; APC v. INEC (Supra); Ogboru v. Uduaghan(2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 357; Efet v. INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 423; Sa’eedv. Yakowa(2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 133; Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; SPDCN Ltd. v. Agbara(2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 353; Agbaje v. INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 151; Allanah v. Kpolokwu(2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 1; Umanah (Jnr.) v. NDIC?(2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458; Esuwoye v. Bosere(2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256; Achonu v. Okuwobi(2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142." PER. O.F OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – RATIONALE FOR THE PRIME CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

?

"Indisputably, the law compels the courts to accord premier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is numero uno in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt.1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579); APC v. Ndual (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1; Adama v. Maigari (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 26; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254.?The reason the law, in its wisdom, insists on prime consideration of jurisdictional issue is obvious. Where a court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding germinating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be trapped in the intractable web of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; Isah v. INEC (2016)18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175." PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

?

?

?

?

Statutes Referred To:

?

Companies and Allied Matters Act

Federal High Court Rules, 2009

Interpretation Act, Cap I 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

Public Officer’s Protection Act