WILLIAM ANGADI V PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS
April 16, 2025CHRISTOPHER ODETOLA VS. DAUDA OKEOWO
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 70615
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN IN LAGOS
Tue Feb 28, 2017
Suit Number: CA/L/390/2014
CORAM
ABIMBOLA O.OBASEKI ADEJUMO
PARTIES
ALHAJA RISIKAT SALAKO APPELLANTS
1. MRS OMOWUNMIIDOWU ABINDE2. MISS OMOBOLA OYEWUNMI IDOWU3. MR. GBOYEGA AKINWANDE IDOWU4. MR. ADETOKUNBO OLUMIDE IDOWU (The Administrators of the Estate of Late O.A. Idowu) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JUDGEMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, LIMITATION LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondents took out a writ of summons against the Appellant at the Lagos State High wherein they sought the following reliefs: a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the lawful owners of all that piece of land situate at Plot 0108, Ajao Layout otherwise known as No. 59, Oladimeji Street, Aguda Surulere shown and delineated on survey plan No. CD 1460/70 covered by certificate of occupancy No. 25/25/1982D, an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant, her servants, agents, workers, representatives or privies from further committing any acts of trespass on or intervening with the Plaintiff use of the aforementioned land and general and special damages for trespass committed on the land and for destruction of Plaintiffs’ structures in the sum of (3,000,000) Three million Naira, against the Defendants. After due consideration of the arguments from both parties, the trial court entered judgment for the Respondents as owners of the parcel of land situate at Plot 0109, Ajao Layout otherwise known as No 59, Oladimeji Street, Aguda, Surulere. The judgment was executed years later and it was after execution that the Appellant became aware of the judgment and filed an appeal against same.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction entertain the suit?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“The issue of jurisdiction has been restated in a plethora of authorities, jurisdiction is fundamental and the sole most important requirement for due adjudication in any matter. It is settled law that jurisdiction is a radical and crucial question of competence because if a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity ab initio, however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might be since a defect in competence is not intrinsic, but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. Jurisdiction is therefore considered to be the nerve centre of adjudication; the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law in the very same way that blood gives life to the human being in particular and the animal race in general- See Onyenucheya V. Milad, Imo State (1997) 1 NWLR (PT 482) 429. Likened to the blood in any living animal without which the animal cannot survive, the absence of jurisdiction is therefore fatal to adjudication as it erodes the powers of the court and makes it incompetent to do what the parties would have asked the court to do”.
JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURTS WHERE JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGED
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, ‘the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before proceeding to take any step in the matter. See Ogboru V Uduaghan (2012) 2-3 SC 66 @ 98-99 where the apex court held that where there is a challenge to jurisdiction, the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits because jurisdiction is crucial to the competence of the court.”
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHEN CAN A CHALLENGE ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED?
“Furthermore, because of the importance of jurisdiction as held by the apex court, a challenge to jurisdiction can be raised on appeal for the first time, even at the Supreme court by the parties or the court suo motu as long as the parties are heard, see Egharevba V Eribo &Ors (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 411 (SC) wherein the apex court held thus:
“The issue of jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised and challenged at any stage of the proceedings in the lower court, in the court of Appeal or even for the first time in the Supreme court. The issue of jurisdiction being so pivotal can be raised by the court suo motu so long as the parties are accorded the opportunity to react to the issue.” See also Obiuweubi V. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) 7 NWLR 465.
JURISDICTION – WHETHER LEAVE OF COURT MUST FIRST BE SOUGHT BEFORE A CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL
“There seems to be 2 different schools of thought on this point. There are authorities that say leave must first be obtained before such issues can be raised on appeal and also authorities which emphasize the importance of jurisdiction and say that a challenge to jurisdiction can be raised on appeal without necessarily obtaining prior leave. The court can also raise it suo motu if it is apparent on the record. If so, it goes without saying that it can be raised for the first time without leave of court. I am inclined to follow the latter school of thought and state that as long as parties are heard on the issue before it is determined, it can be raised without leave and even orally. Besides, to raise the issue of jurisdiction orally also lends support to the view that it can be done without first seeking leave of court, leave is not sought for viva voce. I also believe that is the latest position on the issue of whether leave must first be sought before the issue is raised as settled in the case of A.G Kwara State & Anor V Adeyemo & Ors (2016) LPELR-41147(SC), where the court held:
“The long settled position of the law is that a fresh issue can only be raised on appeal after leave (i.e. permission) is asked for and obtained, but there is an exception to this position of the law. Due to the fundamental nature of jurisdiction, once the issue is on jurisdiction, leave is not required before it is raised in this Court.”
ORIGINATING PROCESS – WHO CAN SIGN A WRIT OF SUMMONS?
“The position of law on who signs a writ of summons is that it is either signed by the party personally or his legal practitioner. It is the right of a party to either prosecute the claim personally or by a legal practitioner of his choice and this is in conformity with the rules of fair hearing. However, when a choice is made, it must be clearly defined as to whether it is the party himself or a counsel signing. The two of them cannot appear to sign together as there is a format which is usually followed by filing in the relevant portions before filing and issuance.”
ORIGINATING PROCESS – WHETHER MERE SIGNATURE ON A WRIT WILL SUFFICE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF SIGNING A WRIT OF SUMMONS?
“Can a signature alone validate a writ without a name? Can a signature alone be full compliance with the requirements of the rules that the originating process be signed by the party or his legal practitioner? The relevancy of a name identifying or verifying a signature is very important. See SLB Consortium V N.N.P.C (2011) 4 S. C (PT. 1) 86 @107 where the apex court held :
‘What then is so important about the way counsel chooses to sign processes? Once it cannot be said who signed a process, it is incurably bad and rules of court that seems to provide a remedy are of no use as rule cannot override the lawQ.e. the Legal Practitioners Act) all processes filed in court are to be signed as follows:
“first the signature of counsel, which may be any contraption; secondly, the name of the counsel clearly written; thirdly, who counsel represents; fourthly, the name and address of the legal firm.’ In this suit, the originating summons was signed but there was no name of counsel. The position is that there must be strict compliance with the law…..in this case there is a signature of counsel, but no name of counsel. A signature without the name is incurably bad”.
The above quotation is the situation here; the writ has a signature without a name. My learned brother, IKYEGH JCA also had cause to pronounce on the validity of such a process in the case of Aremu V Shinaba (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1408) 63 @ 73 in which he said:
“The originating process- the application for writ of summons and the statement of claim- together with the reply to the statement of defence were signed by an unidentified/ unknown person for a Mrs Bisi Akin lade. The originating process, the life wire of the action, was on that account incurably defective, as it was neither signed by the Respondents as Claimants or by their legal practitioner.” See also Peak Merchant Bank Limited V Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2011) NWLR (PT. 1261) 253; Buhari V Adebayo (2014)10 NWLR (PT.1416) 560 @ 589-590 and Yakubu V Federal Mortgage Bank Of Nigeria (2015)11 NWLR (PT.1470) 232 @ 243 which restated the importance of disclosing the identity of who signed the process which is to assist the court to confirm who in fact signed the process. It also removes any ambiguity and assists the court to know if the person is a legal practitioner within the requirement of the law. The writ in issue here is incurably bad and void.”
LEGAL PRACTITIONER – REQUIREMENT TO PRACTICE AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER
“The second leg of the challenge touches on the Statement of claim which was signed but the name endorsed thereupon is Oye Ogungbe & Co which is not a legal Practitioner as required section 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L ll, laws of the Federation, 2004. It provides thus:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.” Section 24 of the Act also provides:
“Legal Practitioner” means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.”
From the above provision, it is clear that the person who is entitled to practice as a legal practitioner must have had his name on the roll. It does not say that his signature must be on the roll but his name. The combined effect of the above two provisions is that for a person to be qualified to practice as a legal practitioner, he must have his name in the roll otherwise he cannot engage in any form of legal practice in Nigeria, see Hamzat V Sanni (2015)1-2 SC 1.”
LACK OF JURISDICTION-STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY A COURT WHERE IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AN ACTION
“When a court lacks jurisdiction, the only necessary step to take is to strike out the suit. The claim of the Respondents before the court below is liable to be struck out.”
JUDGEMENT OF COURT- CAN A JUDGEMENT OF COURT BE SET ASIDE WHEN SAME HAS BEEN EXECUTED?
“The law is that a judgment can be set aside whether it has been executed upon or not. When a judgment is set aside, any execution which had already taken place goes with it, see Ibrahim V Ojonye (2011) LPELR-3737(CA)”
JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
“The law is settled that jurisdiction is determined on the originating processes, they are the ones that invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The Writ of Summons and Statement of claim are initiating processes and therefore, jurisdiction must be enured from these processes.”
STATUTE OF LIMITATION- WHEN CAN STATUTE OF LIMITATION BE RAISED
“In the same vein, statute of limitation can only be raised on a valid writ and statement of claim which could proceed to hearing but for the extinction of the right to litigate by law.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT -IMPLICATION OF DETERMINING A MATTER IN THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
“It is trite that when the jurisdiction of a court is not properly invoked, no other step can be taken and any step taken must be set aside as incompetent. In a crystal clear situation where initiating processes are glaringly void, the jurisdiction of the court has been tampered with and it will serve no useful purpose to consider the other aspects, see Okolo V. U.B.N. Ltd (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
High Court of Lagos State rules, 2004.
Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11
Limitation Law of Lagos State 1973
