CORAM

---

MARY PETER ODILI    JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. BARRISTER OKEY UZOHO

2. BARRISTER AUSTINE INYA

3. BARRISTER CALISTUS NNADI

4. BARRISTER MIKO NKWOCHA

5. BARRISTER BENSON IBEZIM

APPELLANTS 

---

1. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PRIVATIZATION

2. BUREAU OF PUBLIG ENTERPRISES

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, JURISTIC PERSONALITY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants commenced an action by way of Originating Summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division wherein they sought for both declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the Respondents with respect to the propriety on their advertisement on April 22nd, 2004 issue of THISDAY Newspaper. The said advertisement was titled  “Request for expression of Interest.” It invited Legal Practitioners, amongst other professionals, with expertise in petroleum logistics in the Oil and Gas industry, to offer legal services to the Respondents on the condition that lawyers subordinated themselves to non-lawyers, shared legal fees with non-lawyers and engaged in partnership relationships with non-lawyers; hence the action of the Appellants. In reaction, the Respondents filed a notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court, on the grounds that the Appellants have no locus standi to institute the action and the 1st Respondent is not a juristic person. In its ruling, the trial Court held that the suit was academic in nature and consequently, struck it out. The trial Court also struck out the name of the 1st Respondent as being a non-juristic person. Dissatisfied with that ruling, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, via a Notice of Appeal, and the court in its judgment, dismissed the appeal in part, by holding that the trial Court was right to have struck out the substantive suit on the ground that it was academic but reversed the holding of the trial Court that the 1st Respondent was not a juristic personality. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the Appellants have now appealed to this Court via an Amended Notice of Appeal containing nine grounds.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court was right in not reversing the trial Court for prejudging the substantive suit by holding at an interlocutory stage that the respondent’s ‘Request for expression of interest [EOI]’ did not violate the Legal Practitioner’s Rules of Professional Conduct, notwithstanding that the appellant’s originating summons presented rules 45, 48 and 50 for interpretation with respect to the aforesaid publication?

2. Whether the lower Court was right in not reversing the trial Court’s ruling on the basis that the trial Court, suo motu, raised and considered the substantive suit as academic and on that basis struck out the same without affording the appellants the opportunity of being heard, and if so, whether the substantive suit was indeed academic?

3. Whether the lower Court was right to have dismissed the appeal on the basis of ‘non-justiciability and/or lack of locus standi’ notwithstanding that:

a. The trial Court did not strike out the substantive suit on the basis of non-justiciability and/or lack of locus standi;

b. None of the Grounds of Appeal challenged the ruling on the basis of the justiciability of the substantive suit and/or lack of locus standi;

c. The issue of ‘non-justiciability and/or lack of locus standi’ did not arise in the appeal and could not have been distilled from any of the grounds of appeal.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“Of course, in determining whether a Court has jurisdiction over a suit, the Court is bound to make reference to the pleadings of the appellant, in this case, the Originating Summons, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim [1962] 2 SCNLR 341; Enwezor v Onyejekwe [1964] 1 All NLR 14; Adeyemi v Opeyori [1976] 9-10 SC 31; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (pt. 117) 517.

From the questions for determination and the reliefs sought, what clearly emerges is that no issue was joined by the parties. The learned trial Judge is also expected to make a careful and proper appraisal of all the evidence before him in arriving at his conclusion. No matter how a question of jurisdiction is broached, the Court must deal with it as it is fundamental to the vires of the Court.

Where the question of jurisdiction succeeds, it results into a total negative operational effect. In other words, the totality of the suit becomes non-existent as it is with the situation at hand. For question of fair hearing to apply, there must be a valid and subsisting suit, not an academic or hypothetical suit, as in the instant case, Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi [2013] 6 NWLR (pt 1350) 289, 316”.-PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Legal Practitioner’s Rules of Professional Conduct

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT