CORAM

---

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU     JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA

---

PARTIES

---

1. ALHAJI RAFIU KURANGA2. ESTATE OF LOUIS OMOTAYO JOSEPH3. MR OYESOLA OYEWO4. MR RAHMONI OYEWOLE APPELLANTS

---

1. OLATUNDE GEORGE (Trading as George Auto Engineering Works)2. AKINOLA GEORGE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent/Cross-Appellant/Applicant by a motion on notice brought under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court sought an order of the Honourable Court granting leave  to amend his pleading in the consolidated suits, an order of this Honourable Court to  join the  Estate of Louis Omotayo Joseph, Alhaji Olasunkanmi (otherwise called Alhaji Rafiu Kuranga), Mr. Oyesola Oyewo and Mr. Rahmoni Oyewole as parties to the Defendant’s counter-claim in the Suit No: ID/1006/98 before the Lower Court, and an  order of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Cross/Appellant/Applicant to file and transmit same to this Honourble Court as additional record, the amended Statement of Defence and counter claim filed by virtue of the Orders granted by the Honourable Court herein, and same to form part of and be used as additional records for the hearing of the appeal herein amongst others. This application was opposed by the Respondents in this application who consequently filed a counter affidavit. The court consolidated both suits and held that suit no. LD/L66/99 is incompetent whilst Suit No. ID/1006/98 is competent but tainted having been tried alongside the incompetent suit.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

–    Whether given that the conditions to make the Hon, Court herein grant the application for amendment herein sought is present in the extant application, there is any other reason why the Hon. Court will not grant the said prayer herein.”-    Whether the present motion dated and filed on the 19th November, 2013 is not incompetent, mala fide and thus liable to be dismissed

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION –DUTY OF THE COURT IN CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

---

“Thus at the end of the joint trials or proceedings, a separate judgment must be given regarding each suit, action or appeal. The Court should not therefore determine one action and ignore the other. Most undoubtedly, the whole essence of consolidating actions is to save time and costs. See NASR v. Complete Home Enterprise (Nig) Ltd (Supra), Lediju v. Odulaja (Supra), Dugbo v. Kporoara (1958) WRNLR pg.73; Ezike v. Egbuata (Supra).” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED BY PARTIES OR BY THE COURT SUO MOTU

---

“Parties to a suit can raise the issue of jurisdiction and a Court can suo motu raise the same issue provided the parties are given the opportunity to react to the issue. Wariko v. Ade-John (1999) 9 NWLR Pt 619 pg 407, Galadima v. Tanbai (2000) 6 SC Pt.1 pg 196.” PER. U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION – PURPOSE OF CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION – DUTY OF THE COURTS IN CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

---

“The general rule is that where two or more cases or suits are consolidated and heard or tried together by a court each of them would retain its distinct and separate identity for the purposes of determination of the issues canvassed therein. Thus a court is required to render or give judgment separately for each of the consolidated cases, because consolidation is merely ordered for convenience and to save time in the process of trial. However, in the case of Machika v. Ksha (2011) 3 NWLR (pt 1233) 15 at 40; the Court of Appeal held that the fact that the trial court delivered only one judgment in respect of the two consolidated suits was in order, since it did not result in any miscarriage of justice.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

LEGAL PRACTITIONER- DEFINITION OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER – SECTION 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

---

“Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act defines a “Legal Practitioner” to be 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 purpose of any particular office proceeding. See Okafor v. Nweke (Supra) Onnoghen JSC continued to hold
“that the combined effect of the above 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.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

LACK OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF A COURT WHERE IT LACKS JURISDICTION

---

“Once a court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or Common Law principles to impose it because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. The matter ends there and the only procedural duty of the Court is to strike out the matter. Umanah v. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR Pt.1009 pg 503.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

INCOMPETENT SUIT – STATUS OF AN INCOMPETENT SUIT

---

“Where a writ or a suit is found to be incompetent, the court is robbed of the necessary vires to continue with adjudication.
“The question of jurisdiction is very fundamental that it should be determined first by the courts before starting any proceedings. If the Courts proceeds without jurisdiction, all proceedings however well conducted amount to a nullity. It is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time by a party even on appeal in the Supreme Court. However, it is important to note that issues of jurisdiction must be raised timeously and resolved first before embarking on further proceedings.”
Ukwu v. Bunge 1997 8 NWLR Pt.578 pg 527, Jeric Nig Ltd v. Union Bank of Nig Plc 2000 12 SC Pt 2 of 133, AG Lagos State v. Dosunmu 1998 3 NWLR Pt 111 Pg.552, Nonye v. Anyichie 2005 2 NWLR Pt 910 Pg.623.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

LEGAL DOCUMENTS – WHO CAN SIGN LEGAL DOCUMENTS?

---

“The law has made it clear in a plethora of cases who can sign a legal document. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR Pt 1043 Pg 521. The Supreme Court per Onnoghen JSC made it clear who can sign a writ, an originating process in a suit. Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act provides:
“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.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION – CRITERIA FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION

---

“It is the practice in our Courts that suits may be consolidated. Consolidation may be ordered if the trial Judge is satisfied that the issues in the suit can be resolved in one proceeding rather than in separate proceedings. This decision is arrived at, if the learned trial Judge is satisfied that:
(a) Some common question of law or fact arise in both or all the causes or matter or
(b) The rights to relief are claimed in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or
(c) For some other reasons it is desirable to make an order under the Rule. See Iloabachie v. Ebigbo (2000) 8 NWLR Pt. 668 pg.197, Okwuagbala v. Ikwuem (2010) LPELR 2538.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

JURISDICTION- FACTORS THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

---

“In considering whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court is guided by the claim before it, by critically looking at the writ of summons and statement of claim. See Gafar v. Government of Kwara State (2007) 4 NWLR Pt.1024 pg 375, Onuorah v KRPC (2005) 6 NWLR Pt.921 pg 395, Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR Pt.117 pg 517 Nkuma v. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR Pt.077 pg 587.” PER U. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---