GRIER HOUSE ESTATES LTD V NICON TRUSTEES LTD & 2ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2022-12) Legalpedia 91592 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

Wed Dec 14, 2022

Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/439/2020

CORAM

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JCA

PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN JCA

PARTIES

GRIER HOUSE ESTATES LTD

APPELLANTS

NICON TRUSTEES LTD

ABAHM ONAH

EJETA OTUON

IYO

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

JURISDICTION, JUDGMENT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal probes into the correctness of the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division (lower court). In 2009, the appellant (plaintiff) purchased a parcel of land from Alma Beach Estates Limited. Hitherto, in 1991 there was an executed Trust deed between Grande Alma Nigeria Ltd now Alma Beach Estates limited. By virtue of the trust deed, the 2^nd respondent (defendant) was appointed receiver/manager of Alma Beach Estates ltd.

The 1^st Respondent filed an action (originating summons) before the lower court seeking for its direction for the exercise of power of the 2^nd Respondent over 150 plots of land within Alma Beach Estates and concurrently filed an ex parte application seeking for police protection for the 2^nd Respondent to enter into the premises. The lower court granted the exparte application by making an interim order. The respondent (Alma Beach Estates Limited) filed a preliminary objection against the suit. The lower court dismissed the suit based on the preliminary objection. The 1^st Respondent appealed against the decision to this court, and this court allowed the appeal in part by substituting the order for dismissal with order of striking out.

 

The appellant alleged that in May and June, 2019, the respondents, using the instrumentality of the Nigerian Police Force, thugs and hoodlums, based on the interim order, broke into and destroyed the appellant’s property, harassed, intimidated, assaulted and arrested the occupants of the property.  Sequel to these, the appellant beseeched the lower court, via an originating summons. In reaction, the respondents, upon service filed a notice of preliminary objection. The lower court consolidated the hearing of the originating summons and the notice of preliminary objection and gave a considered judgment granting the preliminary objection and dismissed the originating summons. The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and has launched an appeal to this court.

HELD

Appeal struck out for being incompetent.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Appellant/Respondent a privy to the debtor company held not to have locus standi to deal and sue on charged assets by this court can approach the court by way of filing a Notice of Appeal effectively re-litigating the self-same issue earlier decided by this court?
2. Whether the Appellant/Respondent is bound by the decision of this court to lack the locus standi to deal or sue as touching charged assets covered by the Debenture Trust Deed in its judgment delivered on 25^thOctober, 2016 in Nicon Trustees Ltd. v. Alma Beach Estates Limited, CA/L/365/2004 (Exhibit 5) and followed by the Federal High Court in its Ruling in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1242/17 on the 9^thof January, 2018 (Exhibit 8); the Judgment of Honourable Justice M. S. Hassan in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1046/2019 between GRIER HOUSE ESTATE LIMITED V. NICON TRUSTEES LIMITED & 4 ORS on 26^th February 2020 (Exhibit 9)?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – MEANING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND WHY IT IS DEALT WITH FIRST

A preliminary objection is a specie of objection which, if sustained by a court, will render further proceedings in a matter unnecessary, see Abe v. UniIlorin (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 183; APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531; Jim-Jaja v. C.P, Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225; Petgas Resources Ltd. v. Mbanefo (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 442; Ekemezie v. Ifeanacho (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 356.  For this reason, the law commands the court to deal first with a preliminary objection when raised in any proceedings, see Uwazurike v. A.-G., Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035)1; FBN Plc v. T.S.A. md. Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247; Okereke v. James (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 339; APC v. INEC (Supra); Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 357; Efet v. INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 423; Sa’eedv. Yakowa (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 133; Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Allanah v. Kpolokwu (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 1; Umanah (Jnr.) v. NDIC  (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256; Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142. I will obey this legal commandment so as not to insult the law. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

RECEPTION OF FRESH EVIDENCE – WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS THE JURISDICTION TO RECEIVE FRESH EVIDENCE

The provision of order 4 rule 2 of the Court of the Appeal Rules, 2021 grants this court the licence, in deserving circumstances, to receive such fresh evidence. In this wise, the jurisdiction of this court is ignited by an application for leave to adduce /tender further evidence and supported by an affidavit. The court grants the application if applicant satisfies the necessary conditions. This procedure, reception of fresh evidence on appeal, is, firmly, propagated in our corpus juris in that the case law, in a flood of ex cathedra authorities has given its blessing to it, see Asaboro v. Aruwaje (1974) 4 SC 119, Ariran v. Adepoju (1961) 1 All NLR 722; Nwanezie v. Idris (supra); Okpanum v. S.G.E (Nig.) Ltd. (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 537/(1998) 5 SCNJ 142; Amechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227; UBA Plc v. BTL Ind. Ltd. (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 356; Ehinlanwo v. Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 357; Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30; Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 357; Adeyeta v. Bangboye (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1363) 532; CPC v. Onbugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) 66; GTB Plc v. Innoson Nig. Ltd. (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1591) 181; Statoil Nig. Ltd. v. Inducon Nig. Ltd. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 586; Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. Ltd. (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 168; Dike-Ogu v. Amadi (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 45; Sharing Cross E-S Ltd. v. Umaru Adamu Ent. Ltd. (2020) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1733) 561; Oboh v. NFL Ltd. (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1766) 305; UBN Plc. v. Petro Union Oil & Gas Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1829) 199.The respondents, in their infinite wisdom, starved this court of any concrete evidence of such application which is sine qua non for the activation of the jurisdiction of this court for the admission of those documents which, to all intents and purposes, bear the sobriquet of fresh evidence. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – THE TWIN REQUIREMENT THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BY AN OBJECTOR

The appellant staked its grouse on the provision of section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which is in pari materia with the defunct section 91 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2004. Since the provision is the cynosure of this knotty limb, it is germane to mine it out whence it is domiciled in the Evidence Act, 2011, ipsissima verba, as follows:

(3) Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.

It is decipherable from the phraseology of the provision, which is comprehension-friendly, that twin requirements, which are embedded in it, must be satisfied by an objector. It must be shown that the document was made when the action was pending and by a person interested. The Supreme Court has sanctioned this hallowed principle of law in loads of judicial authorities, see Anyaebosi v. R.T. Briscoe Ltd. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 167) 290; N.S.I.T.F.M.B. v Klifco Nig. Ltd. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 307; U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc. v. Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 221; Isiaka v. Amosun (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 417; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. OHMB (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Anagbado v. Faruk (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 292; Elias v. FRN (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1800) 495. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

LEAVE OF COURT – WHETHER OR NOT LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED TO RAISE A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

In a spirited bid to castrate the appellant’s objection against the documents, the respondent erected the defences of the documents being jurisdictional question and forming part of the affidavit. Indisputably, the inelastic position of the law is that leave of court is not required to raise a jurisdictional issue, see Wema Sec. & Fin. Plc v. NAIC (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 93; Onemu v. Comm., Agric & National Resources, Asaba (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

AFFIDAVIT – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO AN AFFIDAVIT

In the same vein, documents attached to an affidavit forms part and parcel of it, see Iyeke v. P.T.I (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 217; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254; Ezeanochie v. Igwe (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1724) 430; Zakhem Oil Serve Ltd. v. Art-In-Science Ltd. (2021) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1808) 341. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

AFFIDAVIT – AN INADMISSIBLE DOCUMENT CANNOT FORM PART OF AN AFFIDAVIT

To begin with, the admissibility vel non of those documents does not, by an stretch of judicial interpretation, fall within the wide firmament of jurisdictional issue. Secondly, a document has to be admissible to form part of an affidavit on which it is hoisted. In other words, an affidavit ought not parent inadmissible evidence for utilization by the court. In effect, these two weak-kneed defences, which the respondents brandished and paraded to salvage the documents, are disabled from their birth. They cannot fly! Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – THE UNBRIDLED JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO EXPUNGE INHERENTLY ADMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AT JUDGMENT STAGE

Indubitably, law grants to the court, either trial or appellate, the unbridled latitude to expunge admitted inherently inadmissible evidence at the judgment stage. The wisdom behind this hallowed principle of law is plain.  A court of law is divested of the jurisdiction to act on an inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision, see Alade v. Olukade (1976) 2 SC  183; IBWA  v. Imano Ltd. (2001) 3 SCNJ 160; Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 407; Namsoh v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 292) 129; Abubakar v. Joseph (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 307; Abubakar v. Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 389; Philips v. E.D.C. & Ind. Co Ltd. ( 2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) 618; Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117. In all, I uphold the appellant’s objection to the admissibility of exhibits 12-14. On this score, in order to appease the law, I will ostracise exhibits 12-14 from this appeal. Accordingly, exhibits 12-14 are hereby expunged as inadmissible and unusable documents in the determination of the appeal. Having cleared the coast, I will proceed to attend to the hub of the preliminary objection. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

LOCUS STANDI – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON LOCUS STANDI

It is trite law that the absence or presence of locus standi in a party will divest or infuse jurisdiction into a court to discountenance or entertain a matter before it, see Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 349/(2005) 30 WRN 1; A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G. Fed (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin/Exec., Estate Abacha v. Eke-Spiff (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310 1370; Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Adebayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; Okwu v. Umeh (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1501) 120; Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452; Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 210; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666)518; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401.  It is an ambitious and a jealous concept in that the law insists it must be decided before a court handles the merit of a case, see Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; Araruma v. Ubah (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1779) 511. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

LOCUS STANDI – THE ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

From an etymological perspective, the cliché, locus standi, traces its ancestry to the Latin Language which means: “place of standing”.  In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority, see INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra); Ararume v. Ubah (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1779) 511. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

LOCUS STANDI – THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE EVOLUTION OF LOCUS STANDI

Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants who have no interest in matters before it, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562; Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

LOCUS STANDI – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABBLISHING LOCUS STANDI

For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra).  Again, he has to show that he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations are in the danger of being infringed on, see Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 542; Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra). Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

AFFIDAVIT – AFFIDAVITS SERVES AS THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN ACTIONS COMMENCED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS

Nota bene, in an action commenced by dint of originating summons, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM – ONLY A PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM / AFFIDAVIT IS RELEVANT IS DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

It must be stressed, that it is only a plaintiff’s statement of claim or affidavit, not a statement of defence or a counter-affidavit, that is relevant in determining the jurisdiction of a court, see lzenkwe V. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 301; UBA Plc. v. BTL Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 361; Ngere V. Okuruket ‘XIV’ (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1559) 440. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL – MEANING OF

Generally, the doctrine of issue estoppel postulates that within a cause of action, several issues may come into question which are necessary for the determination of the whole case. The rule is that once one or two of such issues have been distinctly raised in a cause of action and appropriately determined or resolved between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither party nor his servant, agent or privy is allowed to re-open or relitigate that or those decided issues all over again in another matter between the same parties or their agents or privies on the same issues. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL – CONDITION BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL

For issue estoppel to apply, the parties, the issues, the subject matter (res) in the previous proceeding and the current action must be the same and the issue must have been resolved in the previous case, see Salami v. Sokefun (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 207) 672; Omnia (Nig.) Ltd. v. Dyktrade (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576; Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 638; Ikotun v. Oyekanmi (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 100; Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83; Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 188; Gbemisola v. Bolarinwa (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1; APC v. PDP (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

PARTY – WHO IS A PARTY?

A party is a person by or against whom a legal action is sought and whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant, see Green v. Green (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) 795; Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494; BelIo v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342; Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 229. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

PRIVY – WHO IS A PRIVY?

A privy is “A person having legal interest of privity in any action, matter or property; a person who is privity with another”, see Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 10^th edition (USA, West Publishing Co., 2014) page 1394. In law, parties include privies which are classified into three: (1) Privies in blood (as ancestor and heir) (2) Privies in law (as testator and executor; intestate and administrator) and (3) Privies in estate (as vendor and purchaser, lessor and lessee), see Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) 9-10 SC 203; Oyerogba v. Olaopa (1998) 12 SCNJ 115. In the mind of the law, parties to an action embrace privies in estate, see Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) 10 NSCC 566; Omoloye v. A. –G., Oyo State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 267; Balogun v. Adejobi (1995) 1 SCNJ 242; Adone v. Ikebudu (2001) 7 SCNJ 513; Oyerogba v. Olaopa (1998) 11 & 12 SCNJ  115. Abubakar v. B. O. & A. P. Ltd. (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 319; L. S.  B. P. C. v. Purification Tech. (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 82. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

DOCUMENTS – POWER OF THE COURT TO READ A DOCUMENT HOLISTICALLY

Remarkably, the law grants to the courts the unfettered nod to read a document holistically so as to reach and garner harmonious results of its content, see Ojokolobo v. Aremu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377/(1987) SCNJ 98; Unilife Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Adeshigbin (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; ACB v. Apubo (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; Mbani v. Bosi (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 400; Bunge v. Gov. Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573; Agbareh v. Minra (2008)2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378; Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt, 1188) 429; BFI Group v. BPE (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 209; Julius Berger Nig. PLC. v. T.R.C.B. Ltd. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 219. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

INTREPRETATION OF DOCUMENT – THE COURT IS ONLY ENJOINED TO APPLY LITERAL RULE AS A CANON OF INTERPRETATION

In addition, in construing a document, the court is enjoined by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, id est, to accord the words deployed therein their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishments, see UBN v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385, UBN Ltd. v. Sax (Nig.) Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 150; Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. Ltd. (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 168. I will pay due obeisance to these legal commandments, on canons of interpretation of document, in order not to hurt the law. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

SAMENESS OF ISSUES IN MATTERS – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON ISSUES IN MATTERS

In the first place, the settled position of the law is that issues in matters are taken to be the same even though the wordings of the reliefs are different provided that the substance and end results are substantially the same; Ministry for Works v. Tomas (Nig) Ltd. (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 740; Alhaji Abba Mohammed Sani v. The President FRN (2019) Legalpedia (SC) 42611; PDP v. Sheriff (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219.  It is, therefore, not the mandate of the law that the issues must mirror themselves “like Siamese twins in feature and outlook”, see Abubakar v. B.O. & A.P Ltd. (supra) at 373, per Tobi JSC. In point of fact, the law is duly satisfied once the issues are substantially the same in their likeness between/among the actions.  In essence, it is the ultimate progeny of the reliefs and issues, not their manner of phraseology, that determines their similarities or otherwise. I will be properly guided by this inflexible principle of law on issues. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT IS IGNITED FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT

It is an elementary law that an appellate court will be bestowed with jurisdiction where a lower court, whence an appeal emanates, is endowed with jurisdiction. The converse is the law. Where a lower court is disrobed of jurisdiction over a matter, an appellate court will not be equipped with jurisdiction to deal with it, see C.G.G. (Nig) Ltd v. Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366; lkechukwu v. Nwoye (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1446) 367; Yar’Adua V. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1448) 123; Lafferi v. NAL Merchant Bank (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1478) 64; Egbuchu V. CMB Plc (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 192; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85; B..O.l. Ltd. v. Awojugbagbe (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 220; Ugo-Ngadi V.  FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1620) 29; Saki v. APC (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1706) 515; Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd.(2018) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1650) 116. This court is only empowered to deploy the provision of section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act when a lower court is clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain a matter. It follows from these, that want of jurisdiction of lower court to hear the appellant’s suit, because it was/is mired in the quicksand of lack of locus standi of its initiator, is contagious. It taints and ousts the jurisdiction of this court under section 15 of the Court of Appeal which “Until it is awakened into action from its sleep by such a complainant, it remains a contended tiger sleeping in its lair”, see Ejowhomu v. Edok-Eter Ltd. (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 39) 1 at 35, per Aniagolu, JSC. In sum, the jurisdiction of this court under the provision lies fallow until it is legitimately ignited. In the end, I have no choice than to resolve the conflated issues one and two against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

JURISDICTION – THE APPROPRIATE ORDER THE COURT SHOULD MAKE WHERE ITS JURISDICTION IS UNDERMINED

Where the jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter is undermined by law, the order it makes is plain. It is one of striking it out, see Okolo v. UBN Ltd. (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87; Gombe v. P.W. (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402); CGG v. Ogu(2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366; Uwazuruike v. A.-G., Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 1; WAEC v. Adeyanju(2008) NWLR (Pt.1092) 270; Dairo v. UBN Plc. (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 347; Ikechukwu v. FRN (supra); Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 423; Onyero v. Nwadike (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 954; Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527; Statoil (Nig.) Ltd. v. Inducon (Nig.) Ltd. (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1774) 1. This will be the destiny of the appellant’s appeal. Per – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA.

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act, 2011

Court of Appeal, 2012

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT