CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

EMMAN ACHERU

---

FREDRICK SUNDAY ALASIA

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent commenced this action at the High Court of Rivers State through a Writ of Summons wherein he sought against the Appellants some declaratory reliefs that the dissolution of the six internal members of the Governing Council of the University of Port Harcourt was improper and illegal; that the removal of the Respondent from the Governing Council of the University of Port Harcourt was illegal; that the Respondent is still a member of the Governing Council and staff of the University of Port Harcourt until the lawful and proper determination or expiration of his term of office on 1st August, 1997; perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants their agents or privies from denying the Plaintiff of all his rights and privileges as a member of the Governing Council of the University; Special and general damages; amongst other reliefs. The Respondent later filed a Motion on Notice seeking further reliefs. In reaction to the motion, the Appellants filed a Preliminary objection urging court to strike out the motion on the grounds that the Court lacked the jurisdiction under Section 251 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; that the prayers were irrelevant and had no nexus with the Respondent’s claims. In its ruling, the lower Court which had earlier granted injunction reliefs guaranteeing the Respondent his rights of accommodation and as part of the University pending the determination of the substantive suit but which order the Appellants had refused to obey; held that the Preliminary objection was a gross abuse of Court Process and same having been dismissed on appeal by the Court of Appeal, lacks merit in the extreme and also dismissed it. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court dismissing the objection, the Appellants commenced this appeal through the Notice of Appeal which was subsequently amended and containing two Grounds of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed (Succeeds Partially)

---

ISSUES

---

Were the reliefs in the Respondent’s Motion related to the substantive claims which are the subject matter for determination before the Court. Has the Lower Court jurisdiction over the matter considering Section 5 of the University of Port Harcourt. Act, 1979 vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURT PROCESSES – POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THERE IS VARIATION IN THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT OF SUMMONS AND THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM

---

“It is quite obvious that there is variation in the reliefs sought in the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim filed by the Respondent. The applicable law is that where such variation exists the Statement of Claim supercedes or is superior to the Writ of Summons. See Isamotu Ofanioku V. Alli (1977)11-12 SC (Reprint) 6 LPELR; 2820348 (SC); Enigbokan V. A.F.F. Co. Ltd (1994) 6 NWLR (PT.314)1. The Reliefs sought by the Respondent in his Statement of Claim are therefore more potent and relevant to this case. –

---

LACK OF JURISDICTION – CONSEQUENCES OF A LACK OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“The jurisdiction of a court has been described as the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law. See UPH V. Onogivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (PT.166) 166. Jurisdiction is therefore quite fundamental in the adjudication of any matter before the court because where the court lacks jurisdiction any proceedings conducted as well as its decision thereon will amount to nullity. –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Court of Appeal Act|University of Port Harcourt. Act, 1979|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT