CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
HOTEL IBIS ROYALE LIMITED
APPELLANTS
ACCOR (SOCOETE ANONYME)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADEMARK, PASSING OFF, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, COSTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which set aside the decision of the High Court of Lagos State. The Respondent (Accor Socoete Anonyme) had initiated legal proceedings against the Appellant (Hotel Ibis Royale Limited) at the High Court of Lagos State, alleging that the Appellant’s use of the trademarked word “IBIS” constituted passing off. The Respondent sought declaratory reliefs, injunctive orders, and damages. After trial, the High Court dismissed the Respondent’s claims entirely.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. Notably, at the appellate stage, the Respondent raised a novel argument challenging the jurisdiction of the very trial Court it had approached, asserting that the Federal High Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning passing off. The Appellant countered that the Respondent’s belated jurisdictional objection constituted an abuse of Court process, especially as the Respondent had voluntarily instituted the action before the High Court of Lagos State.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Respondent’s jurisdictional argument, holding that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that any party to proceedings can raise at any stage. Consequently, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s claims, thereby rendering the proceedings a nullity. This led to the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that the High Court of Lagos State lacked jurisdiction to entertain the passing off claim, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court per Section 251(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
3. The Supreme Court affirmed that a jurisdictional challenge can be raised by any party, including the plaintiff, at any stage of proceedings, regardless of whether that party initiated the proceedings in the Court whose jurisdiction is later questioned.
4. The Court held that each party should bear its own costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the Respondent to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial Court that the Respondent itself had approached, particularly after the Respondent had participated in the proceedings until judgment was delivered?
2. Whether the Respondent was estopped by its conduct from challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court which it had voluntarily approached?
3. Whether the Respondent’s action in challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court after losing at that Court constituted an abuse of Court process?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal’s refusal to award costs against the Respondent was proper, given the Respondent’s conduct in the proceedings?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION
Indeed, jurisdiction is the livewire and soul of adjudication, and due to its innate significance and the need to protect the sanctity of our judicial system, this Court has numerously expressed the view that an inquisition into a jurisdictional question would not be impeded or curtailed by rules of Court or procedure. Such is the paramountcy of jurisdiction that not even an agreement by the disputing parties whether express or implied, can vest jurisdiction on a Court where it is lacking. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC
JURISDICTION – TRANSCENDENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
My Lords, I have taken considerable care to reiterate the fundamental nature of a jurisdictional issue. Jurisdiction, by its very essence, transcends the ordinary limitations that may impede the pursuit of other issues not of a similarly foundational character. While legal doctrines such as waiver, estoppel, and good faith may, in appropriate circumstances, preclude a party from advancing a particular legal argument, these principles must, of necessity, yield when the question of jurisdiction arises. Jurisdiction, as the bedrock upon which judicial authority rests, cannot be compromised or circumvented by equitable considerations or procedural accommodations.– Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC
JURISDICTION – NATURE OF JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF HARD LAW
Jurisdiction, as this Court has consistently held, is a question of hard law, not one of noble sentiments or moral rectitude. While the circumstances may evoke sympathy for the Appellant’s plight, this Court must remain steadfast in upholding the principle that jurisdiction, once found to be absent, invalidates all proceedings conducted without it, irrespective of the conduct of the parties involved. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC
JURISDICTION – IMMUTABILITY OF JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Jurisdiction is a very hard matter of law and so cannot be subjected to particular feelings and sentiments of the Court. Where a contract specifically provides for the venue of litigation, Courts are bound to give teeth to the contract by so construing it, without ado. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC (quoting NIKA FISHING CO. LTD v. LAVINA CORPORATION (2008) LPELR-2035(SC))
INHERENT POWER OF COURTS – ADDRESSING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES SUA SPONTE
My Lords, I must, at pain of repetition, reiterate that even if we were, for the sake of argument, (and I emphasize, we are not), to accept the proposition that a Plaintiff is barred from challenging the jurisdiction of the Court over an action initiated by the Plaintiff, this Court would nonetheless remain duty-bound to address the issue of jurisdiction, even suo motu. Jurisdiction is an unavoidable and foundational question that this Court must resolve definitively, irrespective of the procedural or factual peculiarities of the case. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC
AWARD OF COSTS – DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF COSTS AWARDS
The award of costs or refusal to award costs is a matter in the discretion of the Court, subject to the only qualification that the Court’s discretion must be seen to have been judicially and judiciously exercised in this regard. It is a popular saying that costs follow the events in the sense that although every litigant has a right to obtain an order as to costs, nevertheless he may waive it.” – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC (quoting NIGERIAN BANK FOR COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ANOR v. ALFIJIR (MINING) (NIG) LTD (1999) LPELR-2015(SC))
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – MATTERS CONCERNING TRADEMARKS AND PASSING OFF
By virtue of Section 251(1)(f) of the Constitution, as amended, the Federal High Court is the forum competens for the determination of the respondent’s action which was weaved on trademarks and passing off. In other words, the Federal High Court is equipped with the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s suit which midwifed the appeal. It follows that the trial Court, the High Court of Lagos State, was not clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the action. – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC
COMPETENCE OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL – PRINCIPLE AGAINST PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES
It is settled law that a party is not allowed to formulate more than one issue for determination out of a ground of appeal even though he can combine two or more ground of appeal in formulating an issue for determination. This is the principle against proliferation of issues for determination. In the instant case learned counsel has submitted two issues out of the single ground of appeal for determination thereby rendering the issues incompetent. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC (quoting AMODU v. COMMANDANT, POLICE COLLEGE MAIDUGURI & ANOR (2009) LPELR-467(SC))
RAISING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES – TIMING AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
The issue of Jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Courts. This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (quoting Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 7 SC (Pt 1) 1 at pages 11-12)
PARTICIPATION IN PROCEEDINGS – NON-ESTOPPEL FROM RAISING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
It is an elementary and cardinal principle of the exercise of jurisdiction that where the Court lacks jurisdiction the parties cannot confer and vest jurisdiction on it. Accordingly, the fact that the parties fought a case erroneously on the basis that the Court had jurisdiction when there was none cannot estop a party from subsequently taking the contrary position…. It follows from this principle that jurisdiction cannot be acquired by consent of the parties, nor can it be enlarged by estoppel…. This principle is fortified by the well settled principle that the issue of jurisdiction which determines the competence to exercise jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of trial and indeed even for the first time on appeal. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (quoting Adesola v. Abidoye (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28)
JURISDICTION IN PASSING OFF MATTERS – INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution confers on the Federal High Court jurisdiction to hear and determine not only on matters stipulated in Subsection (f), but other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly. Consequently, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to only matters contained in the said Subsection (f). Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution similarly widens the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, as the Federal High Court is within the purview of the legislative power of the National Assembly. By virtue of Section 251(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to any Federal enactment on copyright, patent, designs, trademarks and passing off e.t.c. The Federal High Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim for passing-off. The Federal High Court has jurisdiction whether or not the claim arises from the infringement of a registered or unregistered trade mark. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (quoting Omnia (Nig) Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt 1058) 576)
FRIVOLOUS APPEALS – JUDICIAL DISAPPROVAL OF WASTING COURT RESOURCES
This appeal is a waste of the scarce judicial time of this Court. This is particularly more so as it was revealed during the hearing of the appeal that sequel to the judgment of the lower Court, the Respondent commenced a fresh action in the Federal High Court against the Appellant for the same claims and that that matter was heard on the merits and the claims of the Respondent again dismissed by the Court. So, what was there to gain by the Appellant in continuing to pursue this appeal. It was filed for purposes other than the development of legal jurisprudence. It is an appeal that this Court ought not have entertained. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC
EVOLUTION OF JURISDICTION IN PASSING OFF MATTERS – JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The law is that the judgment of a Court takes effect from the date it is delivered. Oboh v. Nigeria Football League (2022) LPELR 52867(SC). The judgment of this Court in Omnia (Nig) Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd supra was delivered on the 13th of July, 2007. From that date, the decision impaired the jurisdiction of the trial Court to continue to hear and determine the claims of the Respondent. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
2. Federal High Court Act, 1973
3. Trade Marks Act, 1965, Cap 436, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
4. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993)
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT