CORAM

---

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1 ANTHONY NNAJI

2. OLIVER NNAJI

3. UZOMA NNAJI

APPELLANTS 

---

1. NEW RENDEZVOUZ HOTELS LIMITED

2. NERA HOTEL LIMITED

3. PATRICK NNAJI

4. EMMANUEL NNAJI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, COMPANY LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, LIMITATION LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Before the trial Court, the Respondents, as Plaintiffs, filed a Writ of Summons claiming declarations that the lease agreement entered into between the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in respect of the 1st Plaintiff’s Hotel premises at Plot No. 21, Makeni Street, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja is valid, binding and subsisting between the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs to the exclusion of the Defendants and that the 2nd Plaintiff is legitimately and lawfully entitled to the day-to-day management and running of the same.

Upon being served with the originating processes of the Respondents, the Appellants filed a Joint Statement of Defence and Counter Claim.

After hearing the parties on the Motion on Notice (preliminary objection) of the Appellants, the trial Court delivered its ruling in favour of the plaintiffs/Respondents.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellants filed an instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether upon the consideration of the statement of claim and exhibits furnished the trial Court, the suit subject of this appeal is not an abuse of judicial process as to divest the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain same?

2. Whether on close scrutiny of the statement of claim vis a vis the affidavit evidence of parties, the factual cause of action is not centered on the management, control, and administration of the affairs of the 1st respondent as to confer exclusive jurisdiction over same on the Federal High Court thus divesting the trial Court the jurisdiction over the suit?

3. Whether the action as it relates to the ownership of the properties subject of the lease being No. 21, Makeni Street, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja is not statute barred?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – THE COMMON FEATURE OF THE CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

The concept of abuse of Court process has been held to be imprecise, involving circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. Its common feature is the improper use of the judicial process by any of the parties to litigation in order to interfere with the due administration of justice.

See: SARAKI v KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188 – 189, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – WHERE A SUIT CAN BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

It is also the law that multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties constitutes abuse of Court process and where this happens, the Court has a duty to interfere and halt the abuse of its process. See: OKAFOR & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE & ORS (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659; and SARAKI & ANOR v KOTOYE (supra). In other words, before a suit can be said to constitute abuse of Court process based on multiplicity of action, it must be established that the two or more suits are between the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter and on the same issues. The abuse is in the intention, purpose, and aim of the party embarking on the abuse in order to harass, irritate, and annoy his adversary and interfere with the administration of justice. See: OKORODUDU v OKOROMADU (1977) 3 S.C. 21; and AGWASIM & ANOR v OJICHIE & ANOR (2004) 9 – 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 1. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – WHEN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS WILL BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED

---

It is only when the parties and subject matter in the multiple actions are shown to be the same that abuse of Court process will be said to have been established: OKAFOR & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE & ORS (supra); and SARAKI & ANOR v KOTOYE (supra). – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – THE FACTOR THAT DETERMINES WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER

---

It is settled law that what determines whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter is the subject matter of the claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and statement of claim. In other words, the Court must restrict itself to the claim as put forward by the Plaintiff. See: NURTW & ANOR v RTEAN & ORS (2012) LPELR-7840(SC) at 22 – 23, paras. D – B; PETROLEUM (SPECIAL) TRUST FUND v FIDELITY BANK & ORS (2021) LPELR-56625(SC) at 46 – 47, paras. F – D; UMANAH v ATTAH & ORS (2006) LPELR-3356(SC) at 39, paras. D – F; and NASU v JACOB A & ORS (2020) LPELR-49951(CA) at 25 – 26, paras. C –B. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION

---

As stated earlier, it is the statement of claim that determines whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter and not any defence that may have been put forward by the Defendant: ADEYEMI & ORS v OPEYORI (1976) LPELR-171(SC) at 22 – 23, paras. G – G. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT EXTENDS TO MATTERS OF SIMPLE CONTRACT

---

It is settled by plethora of authorities that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 does not extend to matters of simple contract. See: SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT v MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) at 55, paras. C – E; PORTS AND CARGO HANDLING SERVICES CO. LTD v MIGFO NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2012) LPELR-9725(SC); RAHMAN BROTHERS LTD v NPA (2019) LPELR-46415(SC) at 15 – 16, paras. F – D; and ONUORA v KRPC (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 391. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

STATUTE BAR – HOW TO DETERMINE IF AN ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED

---

It is settled by plethora of judicial authorities that in determining whether an action is statute-barred, the relevant process to consider is the statement of claim. This will be done in order to ascertain (a) when the cause of action accrued; (b) the date of the commencement of the suit; and (c) the period of time prescribed by the relevant limitation statute for bringing an action. Time begins to run from the date the cause of action accrued. See: EGBE v ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 1; and AREMO II v ADEKANYE & ORS (2004) LPELR-544(SC) at 18, paras. B – D. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – HOW TO DETERMINE IF A COURT HAS JURISDICTION

---

In determining a cause of action and whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain same, the Court must restrict itself to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and not any defence that may have been filed by the Defendant. See: SOCIETY BIC S.A. & ORS. v CHARZIN INDUSTRIES LTD (2014) LPELR-22256(SC) at 71, paras. C – E; ABUBAKAR v BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS (2007) LPELR-55(SC) at 35 – 36, paras. F – A; and U.B.N. v UMEODUAGU (2004) LPELR-3395(SC), at 8 – 9, paras. G – A. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

2. Limitation Law of the Federal Capital Territory, 2007

3. Companies and Allied Matters Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT