Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 09048 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

Wed Dec 14, 2022

Suit Number: CA/L/CV/119/2022

CORAM

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JCA

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JCA

PARTIES

INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF FARAPARK PROPERTY OWNERS & RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION & 12 ORS

APPELLANTS

ENGR. ADEBISI ADESINA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, JURISDICTION, ADJUDICATION, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal probes into the correctness of the decision (ruling) of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division (trial court). The first respondent is a registered association established to oversee the management of Fara Park Estate situated along Lekki/Ajah Expressway, Lagos. The second – thirteenth appellants and the respondent are property owners and residents within the Fara Park Estate and members of the first respondent. The respondent felt that there has been lack of transparency and accountability in the financial management of the first respondent by some of his co-members. The respondent, also, alleged that there was improper conduct of elections to the various offices/positions in the organigrams of the first respondent.  Sequel to these, the respondent beseeched the lower court, via a writ of summons and tabled against the appellants, jointly and severally, declaratory reliefs, executory orders and legal costs.

The appellants, upon service of the processes on them, joined issue with the respondent and denied liability by filing conditional appearances and statement of defence. The appellants filed a notice of preliminary objection, predicated on diverse grounds against the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain it. The respondent filed the necessary processes against the preliminary objection. When it came up on 20^th September, 2021, the respondent’s counsel took objection to it. The lower court agreed with the objection and ordered that the preliminary objection would be taken together with the substantive suit. When the matter came up again, the lower court ordered the parties to maintain status quo and should not do anything to undermine the reliefs sought in the suit. The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision hence they have launched appeal to this court.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial judge lacked jurisdiction to make an order to maintain status quo without first determining the locus standi of the respondent to file the suit and whether the order to maintain status quo in the circumstances of this case is granting a substantive relief at interlocutory stage?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – DEFINITION OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

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. 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; B.A.S.F. (Nig.) Ltd v. Faith Enterprises Ltd. (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 104; SPDCN Ltd v4’madi (2011)14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157; 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; SPDCN Ltd. v. Agbara(2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 353; Agbaje v. INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 151; 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. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

LOCUS STANDI – WHETHER OR NOT THE ABSENCE/PRESENCE OF LOCUS STANDI IN A PARTY WILL DIVEST OR INFUSE JURISDICTION

It is an elementary 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 NELR (Pt. 1672) 422; A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

LOCUS STANDI – THE ISSUE OF LOCUS STANDI MUST BE DECIDED FIRST BEFORE A COURT HANDLES THE MERIT OF THE CASE

As a matter of law, locus standi, which denotes the legal capacity to institute an action, is an ambitious and jealous concept I that 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

DISPUTE MECHANISM – WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL DISPUTES MECHANISM IMPINGES ON THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

In the same vein, non-exhaustion/consummation of domestic remedies/internal dispute mechanism impinges on the jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate a matter, see Eguamwense v. Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 1; Bamisile v. Osasuyi (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1042) 225; Aribisala v. Ogunyemi (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 212; Ogologo v. Uche (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 945) 226; Awoyemi v. Fasuan (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 996) 86; Owoseni v. Faloye (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719; Okomalu v. Akinbode (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 338; Unilorin v. Oluwadare (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 751; Aladejobi v. NBA (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 66; Kayili v. Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1457) 26; Bukoye v. Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 173; A.-G., Kwara State (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Magbagbeola v. Akintola (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1629) 177; Zailani v. Gumau (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1709) 452; Aguma v. A.P.C. (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1796) 351; Aliyu v. A.P.C. (2022) LPELR-57345 (SC). PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

JURISDICTION – COURTS SHOULD ACCORD PREMIER ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

Indisputably, the law compels the courts to accord premier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is numero uno in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt.1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579); APC v. Ndual (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1; Adama v. Maigari (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 26; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

 

JURISDICTION – RATIONALE WHY COURTS SHOULD ACCORD PREMIER ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

The lower court fractured the inelastic legal commandment, known for its antiquity, that a preliminary objection, bordering on jurisdiction of court, should be given premier attention in adjudication. The reason the law, in its wisdom, insists on prime consideration of jurisdictional issue is obvious. Where a court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding germinating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be enveloped in the intractable web of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; Isah v. INEC (2016)18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

COURT ORDER – MEANING OF AN ORDER

In the eyes of the law, an order signifies “a mandate; precept; command or direction authoritatively given, rule or regulation, direction of a court or judge made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment”, see Maideribe v. FRN (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 68 at 91 per Mohammed, JCS (later CJN). PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER – MEANING OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

The order is, also, interlocutory: which denotes interim, provisional, temporary, not constituting final resolution of controversy, see Agwu v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 165; C.G.G. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Eronini (2019) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1692) 219. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM – MEANING OF STATUS QUO ANTE BELLUM

The term, the “status quo ante bellum” means the state/situation of things/affairs that existed before the something else, the case/controversy, occurred, see Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247); Falomo v. Banigbe (1998) 6 SC 141/ (1998) 6 SCNJ 42; Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1313) 23. It is a commonplace expression in the firmament of injunction. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

 

SUBSTANTIVE MATTER – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON COURTS DETERMINING A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER AT INTERLOCUTORY STAGE

It is long settled that the law, seriously, frowns upon a court, whether trial or appellate, delving into and determining a substantive matter at interlocutory stage, see Falowo v. Banigbe (supra); Adeleke v. Lawal (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1393) 1, Ovunwo v. Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522; Adetona v. Zenith International Bank Ltd. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 627; Akinrimisi v. Maersk (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1361) 73; ABIEC v. Kanu (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1370) 69; FRN v. Borisade (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) 1556; Bulet Int’l (Nig) Ltd. v. Olaniyi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1521) 580; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Archianga (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 229; In Re: Abdullahi (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 272; Statoil Nig. Ltd. v. Inducon Nig. Ltd. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 586. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JCA

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT