CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

AJAOKUTA STEEL COMPANY LTD APPELLANTS

---

1. GREENBAY INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LTD

2. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF MINES & STEEL DEVELOPMENT

3. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA4. DEBT MANAGEMENT OFFICE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Federal High Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent, against the Appellant, 2nd Respondent at the trial court. Consequent upon the foregoing, the 1st Respondent on the 10th October 2006, received through his agent the sum of one hundred and forty-two million naira (N142, 000,000.00k) in Bond Security. To realize the balance of the judgment sum and interest thereon put at US $17,187,511.89, from the Appellant, the 1st Respondent commenced garnishee proceedings at the trial Court. The Appellant, the 2nd and 4th Respondents, by their respective preliminary objection and/or motions, challenged the competence of 1st Respondent’s garnishee proceedings inter-alia on the ground that, having fully paid the judgment debt, the proceedings was incompetent and unmaintainable. The trial Court, in its ruling upheld the objection by the Appellant, the 2nd and 4th Respondents and dismissed the 1st Respondent’s garnishee proceedings. Aggrieved, the 1st Respondent appealed against the trial Court’s ruling to the lower Court. The lower Court allowed the appeal, set-aside the ruling of the trial Court and remitted the matter to the latter to hear the 1st Respondent’s garnishee proceedings and determine whether or not the order Nisi be made absolute. The success of 1st Respondent’s appeal against the trial Court’s ruling at the lower Court informs the instant appeal. The 1st Respondent has raised and argued a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal that the two grounds of the Appellant’s notice of appeal involves questions of mixed law and fact requiring the leave of either the Court below or this Court to appeal against the decision of the lower Court, and the Appellant having filed the grounds without first seeking and obtaining the leave of court, the appeal is incompetent and liable to be dismissed. The Appellant/1st Cross Respondent also raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the cross appeal on the ground that by seeking and obtaining the leave of the trial Court to modify the order Nisi granted to it, the said Cross Appellant has cross appealed to this Court seeking, in the main, the same reliefs as are still pending at the trial Court which is an abuse of court process.

---

HELD

---

Preliminary Objection Upheld, Appeal Struck Out

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether this appeal is not incompetent in its entirety and ought to be struck out together with the lone issue.

2. Assuming without conceding that the appeal is competent whether, the portion of the Appellant’s brief of argument challenging the power of the trial Court to award interest rate allegedly higher than as provided in the Rules is not liable for striking out.”

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – DUTY OF COURT WHEN A CHALLENGE TO ITS JURISDICTION IS MADE

---

“This is so because of the fundamental nature of jurisdiction in the adjudication process. Jurisdiction remains a central issue to any matter before any court. Once challenged, the Court is duty bound to determine whether it has jurisdiction first before proceeding to determine the case. It is long settled that judicial proceedings conducted by a Court that is lacking of the necessary jurisdiction, no matter how well same were otherwise conducted, would be ab initio null and void. See Okike V. L.P.D.C. (NO 2) (2005) 7 SC III 75 and Adesola V. Abidoye & Anor (1999) LPELR-153 (SC) and Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 SCNLR 341.” –

---

GROUND OF APPEAL – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO INCOMPETENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

“By the interpretation this Court placed on Section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended in a plethora of its decisions it is long settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on ground(s) of fact or mixed law and fact unless leave has been obtained from either the Court of Appeal or the Court. Thus, if indeed the two grounds of the instant appeal are all grounds of fact or mixed law and fact and filed without the necessary leave of either of the two Courts having been sought and obtained, not only the incompetent ground(s) but the issue purportedly distilled from the incompetent ground(s) as well as the appeal sought to be argued on the basis of same, all being incompetent, must be struck out. See Faleye V. Otapo (1987) 4 NWLR (PT. 64) 186, CBN V. Okojie (2002) 8 NWLR (PT 768) 48 SC and Jimoh V. Akande (2009) 5 NWLR (PT 1135) 549”.

---

GROUND OF APPEAL – NEED FOR A GROUND OF APPEAL AND ISSUE DISTILLED THEREFROM TO RELATE TO THE JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED AGAINST

---

“An equally potent submission made by learned senior counsel to the 1st respondent is that, a ground of appeal as well as the issue distilled from it for the determination of an appeal must relate to the decision being appealed against. It indeed follows that only an issue pronounced upon by a lower Court is subject of a competent appeal. See Saraki V. Kotoye (1992) 11-12 SCNJ 26 and Admiral Murtala Nyako V. Adamawa State House Of Assembly (2016) LPELR-41822 (SC).

---

JUDGMENT OF COURT – JUDGMENT MUST BE CONFINED TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES

---

“It is an elementary principle of the determination of disputes between parties that judgment must be confined to the issues raised by the parties. The Court is not competent to suo motu make a case for either or both of the parties and proceed to give judgment on the case contrary to the case of the parties before it. See Benue State & Anor V. Devcon Development Consultants Ltd & Anor (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 83) 407 And Akanbi Agbeje & Ors V. Chief Agba Akin Joshua Ajibola & Ors (2002) LPELR-237(Sc) And Mathew Okechukwu Enekwe V. International Merchant Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2006) LPELR-1140 (Sc). In Ikenta Best Nigeria Ltd V. Ag Rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt 1084) 612 At 642 this Court has held:-
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu if the issue, matter or fact exist in the litigation. A judge by the nature of this adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences to reverse side of page 41 from stated fact in a case and by such inference, the judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu.”
–

---

GROUND OF APPEAL- REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTENT OF A GROUND OF APPEAL

---

In Ressel L.Y. Dakolo & Ors Vs. Gregory Rewane-Dakolo & Ors (2011) LPELR-915(S) at 34-35 where the Court, on the requirements of the content of a ground of appeal, held per Adekeye JSC as follows: –
“[A] ground of appeal should contain precise, clear, unequivocal and direct statement of the decision being attacked. A ground of appeal must give exact particular of the mistake, error or misdirection alleged as parties are bound by their grounds of appeal. Parties are therefore not at liberty to argue grounds which are not related to the judgment appealed against.”(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
See also Lawal Abdullahi Buba Wassah & Ors V. Tukshahe & Ors (2014) LPELR-24212 (SC) and Atoyebi V. Govt Of Oyo State (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 344) 296 AT 305.”
–

---

COURT

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – FEATURE AND EFFECT OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
“The common feature of abuse of Court process is the improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation the most common one being multiplicity of actions on the same issues between the same parties and instituting different actions between the same parties in different Courts. Abuse of the process of the Court may also occur where two similar processes are deployed in the exercise of the same right as in the instant case. Abuse of the process of the Court, where it occurs, constitutes a fundamental defect the effect of which results in the dismissal of the abusive process. See Adesanoye V. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (PT 127) 671 and Umeh & Anor V. Iwu & Ors (2008) LPELR-3363 (SC).” –

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT