Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER [2018]SC. 631/2014

APPEAL NO: SC. 631/2014

AREAS OF LAW:

APPEAL, COMPANY LAW, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The 1^st to 10^th Respondents herein by a writ of summons filed at the Federal High Court, claimed against the 11^th and 12^th Respondents as well as the Appellant jointly the following reliefs; a declaration that the corporate structure of the 2^nd Defendant is such that it did not and cannot accept or discharge it’s corporate responsibilities in torts and contractual obligations to the magnitude of the volume of business exposures it engages in, should the Plaintiffs claim succeed; a declaration that in view of the 3^rd Defendant’s declaration at the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America afore pleaded, the 3^rd Defendant is estopped from denying it’s 100% ownership, and a fortiori, responsibility for all the torts and contractual obligations no matter howsoever described and arising from the 2nd Defendant’s dealings in Nigeria; an order compelling the 3^rd Defendant to file a rectification in the Corporate Affairs Commission of Nigeria clearly accepting full responsibility for the ownership and activities of the 2nd Defendant in the Plaintiffs’ territories and Nigeria among other reliefs. The Appellant however, filed a motion for the suit to be struck out on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the originating process did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The trial court however, suspended the hearing of prayers 2, 3 and 4, in the motion till the conclusion of the trial in the matter. The Appellant herein, being aggrieved, unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. It has now brought this appeal before this court.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

• Whether the court below was right in affirming the decision of the learned trial judge in granting 3rd defendant/Appellant prayer 1 and thus deferring prayers 2, 3 and 4 till after he had taken evidence on the issues joined by the parties in their pleadings and if so, whether a party can appeal against an order he sought and consented to.

RATIONES:

“PLEADING”- DEFINITION OF “PLEADING”

“Pleading simply means the plaintiffs statement of complaint and the defendant’s answer to such a statement. Pleading usually takes place in civil cases. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, by Bryan A. Garner defines pleading as a formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding especially in civil suit sets forth or responds to allegations, claims, denial or defences.” PER P. A. GALINJE, J.S.C

PLEADINGS – CONTENT OF PLEADINGS IN A CIVIL SUIT

“This court has held in a number of cases that parties to a civil suit only plead facts and not evidence or law resulting from the facts; and that parties must give evidence in support of their pleadings. See U.A.C vs Owoade 13 WACA 207: Peenok Investments Ltd vs Hotel Presidential Ltd (1982) 12 SCI: Thanni vs Saibu (1977) 2 SC 89.” PER P. A. GALINJE, J.S.C

SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENT – INSTANCES WHEN THE COURT CAN EXERCISE ITS POWER IN SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN DECISION

“Indeed as a general rule, every court of record has inherent jurisdiction on application and in appropriate cases and circumstances to set aside its judgment or decision. This jurisdiction may be exercised where for instance, the judgment or decision sought to be set aside is null and void ab- initio or there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings which vitiates and renders the same incompetent and invalid. See Alhaii Taofeek Alao vs ACB Ltd (2000) 2 SCNLR 1067: Salami Omokew u & Ors vs Abraham Qlabanii & Anor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 435) 126; Sken consult (Nig) Ltd vs Ukey (1981) 1 SC6. In such a case the court may ex-debito justitiae set aside its decision and may make necessary consequential orders that the justice of each individual case demands. See Jatau vs Ahmed (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt 811) 498.” PER P. A. GALINJE, J.S.C

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION- DUTY OF COURT TO ACT JUDICIALLY AND JUDICIOUSLY IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS

“In the exercise of its discretionary powers, the court has a duty to act judicially and judiciously, taking into account all the material facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law. See: Williams & Ors Vs Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) 1-2 SC 145 @ 152; University of Lagos Vs Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt, 1) 143 @ 148 F: C.B.N, Vs Okojie (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 768) 48: Anachebe Vs Ijeoma & Ors (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt 1426) 168.” PER K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION -ATTITUDE OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A TRIAL COURT

“Once the court has exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously, an appellate court would not interfere, even if it would have exercised its discretion differently if faced with the same situation. See: Ogbechie Vs Onochie (1988) 1 NWLR 370; Olaniyan Vs University of Lagos (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 156: Amobi vs Nzegwe (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392)510”. PER E.EKO, J.S.C

COURT OF APPEAL – EXTENT AND SCOPE OF POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT

“The jurisdiction vested in the Court of Appeal by Section 15 of its enabling Act, in every appeal before it, to “have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings – and re-hear the case” is no more than the review jurisdiction vested in it to consider an alleged error or omission committed by the trial Court or the Court immediately below it. It does not avail the Court of Appeal to usurp the adjudicatory function of the trial Court. The Appellant, apparently erroneous in its view of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, expects the lower Court to step in at this juncture to start reviewing phantom evidence that have not been called on the state of the parties’ pleadings and resolve the disputed facts. PER E.EKO,J.S.C

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS TO REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTER WHEN DEALING WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS

“It remains good law and the law is apposite, as established in Amason v. R.T.D.T.C (2009) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1170) 207 at 211, that Courts must refrain from commenting on issues touching on the substantive matter, yet to be tried and disposed of, when dealing with an interlocutory application. The purpose of this rule is the avoidance of prejudicial comments on, or the prejudging of, the substantive matter. PER E.EKO,J.S.C

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A TRIAL COURT- WHEN WILL AN APPELLATE COURT INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A TRIAL COURT?

“The trial Court’s discretion, reading sub-rules (1) & (2) of Rule 2 of Order 16 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules together, is not in any doubt. Upon an application of any party to set down for hearing any point of law raised in the pleadings the trial Judge, who tries the cause, has the discretion to dispose of the point of law either at the point of his decision on the application “or after the trial.” The trial Judge is the master of any discretion vested in him by law. Unless he exercised the discretion injudiciously or not judicially the Appeal Court will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion: University Of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1983) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1) 156; Bankole v. Dada (2003) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 830) 174. PER E.EKO,J.S.C

ACADEMIC ISSUES – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES

“As it is well-known, academic issues which are, almost always, hypothetical, do not engage the attention of courts since they are not the proper for a for their ventilation, Imegwuv Okolocha [2013] 9 NWLR (pt 1359) 347; and, above all, they are of no utilitarian value, Abe v UNILORIN [2013] 16 NWLR (pt 1379) 183”.PER C.C.NWEZE,J.S.C

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO:

Court of Appeal Act, 2004

Evidence Act, 2011

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT