Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 15308
In the Court of Appeal
Mon Mar 31, 2014
Suit Number: CA/C/183/2009
CORAM
PARTIES
CHIEF E. O. NWADIKE APPELLANTS
1. OLUROTIMI WILLIAMS(carrying on Legal Practice as “Olurotimi Williams, Manager/Receivers Of Eastern Match Industries Ltd.
2. SHANET MATCH IND. (NIG.) LTD.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant was a customer of Eastern Match Industries Limited; he had paid the said company for the supply of matches before it was put under the receivership of the 1st Defendant/Respondent and later taken over by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Both Defendants/Respondents failed to pay back the Plaintiff/Appellant the money he had paid to the company before it was taken over, and this caused him to file an action under the undefended list against the Defendants/Respondents at the Federal High Court which suit was later consolidated with Mr O. N. Ofondu v O. Williams & Ors. In its judgment, the court held that the matter being one of a simple contract was not within its jurisdiction but went further to enter judgment against the Plaintiff/Appellant, who being displeased has now appealed against that decision.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have revisited his earlier decision on jurisdiction and dismissed the suit instead of making an Order to transfer the suit to Cross River State High Court? (Grounds 1, 2 and 3).
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in placing reliance on a document which was not before the court and went further to hold that the plaintiff failed woefully to discharge the onus of proof placed on him? (Grounds 4 & 5).
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that failure to join Eastern Match Industries Ltd. is fatal to the plaintiff’s case? (Grounds 6 & 7).
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the plaintiff has not proved the sale of the assets and liabilities of Eastern Match Industries Ltd? (Grounds 8 & 9).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF THE COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CASES – THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ISSUES BEFORE IT WILL ONLY ARISE IF THE COURT POSSESSES THE REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE CASE
“The duty to consider and make pronouncement on all issues placed before a court of law by the parties in a case, will only arise where, when and if the said court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case in which such issues were raised by the parties.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF A COURT– A COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SIT ON APPEAL IN RESPECT OF AN EARLIER DECISION MADE BY IT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS COMPETENT JURISDICTION.
“The law is firmly established that no court of law, especially the courts of record established by the Constitution of Nigeria, has the requisite power and authority to sit on appeal, for the purpose of reviewing, altering or reversing its earlier final decision on an issue in or of a case, which was delivered or made in exercise of its competent jurisdiction in the case.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – A COURT CANNOT LACK AND HAVE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF A MATTER AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME PROCEEDING
“In law, the lower court cannot admittedly lack and then have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case before it, at the same time, in the same proceedings.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS – JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED ON A COURT BY THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BY PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
“The jurisdiction of a court to consider and make pronouncement on issue raised in a case, which is jurisdiction to adjudicate in the case, is not conferred or vested in the court by principles of practice and procedure, but by the constitution or relevant statute.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO TRANSFER CASES – SECTION 22(2) OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT EMPOWERS THE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO TRANSFER CASES TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT.
“No case brought before Federal High Court shall be struck out by that court on the ground only that the case ought to have been taken or filed before the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.The provisions then provide a Judge of that court before whom the case was brought, the judicial authority and power, by way of judicial discretion, to make an order of transfer of the case to the appropriate State or Federal Capital Territory High Court before which it ought to have been initially taken or filed.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
EFFECT OF PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION – PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.
“As shown in the case of Ohakim v Agbaso(supra),proceedings conducted by a court without jurisdiction are of no value, share waste of judicial time and resources and a complete exercise in futility, no matter how otherwise well and brilliantly conducted.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE HAVE NO CAPACITY TO VEST OR CONFER ON A COURT A VALID AND REQUISITE JURISDICTION WHERE IT LACKS SAME
“The moment a court finds that, under the relevant provisions of the Constitution and/or statute, it lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate in a case, which is a final decision on the issue, principles of practice and procedure have no capacity and cannot vest or confer that court with valid and requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the case inspite of the want of jurisdiction under the Constitution or Statute.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
DECISION OF COURT – THE DECISION OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION CANNOT BE REVISITED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERING SUCH DECISION
“Once a court of competent jurisdiction reaches, renders or pronounces its final decision on an issue in or on a case, it is thereby divested of the judicial authority and power to revisit, reopen and review the said decision for the purpose of changing, altering or reversing it in the same case.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – JURISDICTION OF A COURT CAN ONLY BE CONFERRED ON IT BY THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE.
“The law is that a court cannot confer itself jurisdiction not specifically conferred on or vested in it by the Constitution or Statute. See KLM Airlines v Kumzhi(2004) 8 NWLR (875) 231; Ogunde v Gateway Transit Ltd. (2010) 8 NWLR (1196) 207; Cadbury Nig. Plc v F.B.I.R (2010) 2 NWLR (1179) 561.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
“MAY” – “MAY” WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS BEING MANDATORY WHEN IT IS USED TO IMPOSE A DUTY.
“The law is settled that the courts would interpret the word “may” as mandatory whenever it is used to impose a duty on a public functionary, the benefit of which inures to a private citizen. See Mokelu v Fed. Commissioner of Works & Housing (1976) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 1) 276 at 282; Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v N.P.A. (1987) 1 NWLR (51) 475 at 487; Kotoye v CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (98) 419; Ude v Nwara (1993) 2 NWLR (277) 638 at 661.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
LACK OF JURISDICTION– THE PROPER ORDER A COURT SHOULD MAKE WHERE IT DISCOVERS IT LACKS JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF A MATTER IS TO STRIKE OUT THE CASE.
“The moment and whenever, in the course of proceedings in a case, a court finds, determines and makes a declaration that it lacks the requisite power and authority or jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate over the case, then the only proper order it should make subsequent to the finding of lack of jurisdiction, is one of or striking out the case, thereby bringing an end to the proceedings in the case before it at that stage.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
EFFECT OF PRONOUNCEMENT BY A COURT WHERE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION – ORDERS MADE BY A COURT AFTER ADMITTING IT LACKS JURISDICTION IS NULL, VOID AND OF NO EFFECT
‘‘As pointed out by the apex court in Obi v INEC (2007) 7 SC, 268 any other order or pronouncement, and I add, any other step, taken after declaring that it has no jurisdiction over the case, is null, void and of no effect.’’PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
DECISION OF COURT – INSTANCES WHERE A COURT CAN REVIEW AN EARLIER FINAL DECISION
“The law recognizes situations, which are exceptions, in which a court may have the jurisdiction to either set aside, depart from or in special circumstances in the apex court, to review or reconsider an earlier final decision on principles of law, as may be dictated by the exigencies of changing times. However, such exceptions are not cases of sitting on an appeal over the decisions on the issues or in the case.” PER M. L. GARBA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
2. Court of Appeal Act, 2011.
3. Court of Appeal Rules, 2011.
4. Federal High Court Act,2005.