CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

KIRFI LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA COUNCIL

---

1. DANJUMA MOHAMMED2. ISMAIL MOHAMMED3. KABIRU BALA4. ABDULAZIZ UMAR5. M.G. IMAM6. NAZIF SULEIMAN7. MUSA BASHIRU8. SULEIMAN SHEHU RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Sometimes in the year 2009, the Appellant entered into a contract of skill acquisition training with the Respondents as facilitators and an NGO was registered as Centre for Youths and Women Skills Acquisition (NGO). The Appellants with express consent agreed to pay the Respondents who were the named facilitators of the program the sum of N100, 000.00 each. It was also agreed that each participant will be issued with a certificate that will cost the Appellant the sum of N325, 000.00. The Respondent conducted the exercise and discharged their obligation under the terms of the contract but the Appellant failed, neglected and refused to pay the Respondents’ their entitlement despite several demands. While the Appellant contended that sometimes in December 2009, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) named “Centre for Youths and Women Skill Acquisition” wrote a letter to the Appellant requesting for a two (2) months skill acquisition for the indigenous members of Kirfi Local Government Area, which was not responded to by the Appellant. Subsequently, the NGO forwarded to the Appellant other undated letters titled “REQUEST FOR FACILITATORS ALLOWANCE”, for training purportedly conducted to the tune of N800, 000.00, and “QUOTATION FOR RELEASE OF N325,000.00 WHICH SHALL BE USED FOR PRODUCTION OF CERTIFICATE OF 650 YOUTH AND WOMEN THAT WERE TRAINED IN VARIOUS AGRO AND ALLIED SKILLS”, which letters the Appellant also ignored. The Respondents final letter was a demand letter to the Appellant, claiming the sum of One Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira (N1, 125,000.00), only from the Appellant as money owed the Respondents and as usual, the Appellant ignored same; hence, the Respondents brought an action before the High Court of justice Bauchi State, wherein they filed a Writ of Summons vide an undefended list. Same was marked and placed under the undefended list procedure and the Respondents sought for an order for the immediate payment of the sum of N1, 125,000.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira) only with 10% post judgment interest and cost of action. The Appellant filed a motion on notice praying the Court to grant him leave to file and serve its Notice of Intention to defend and a conditional memorandum of appearance on the Respondents and same was granted. The matter was transferred to the general cause list for hearing. After the Respondent’s case, the Appellant failed to open it case and was therefore foreclosed from doing so, hence his application seeking leave of Court to open its defence but same was refused by the lower Court. Parties were ordered to file written address and in its final address, the Appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction by challenging the legal capacity of the Respondents to institute the action. The trial Court entered Judgment in favour of the Respondents, granting all the reliefs sought by them. Dissatisfied the Appellant has appealed against the judgment of the lower Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Partly Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial Court was right when it failed to consider and resolve the issue of jurisdiction first before proceeding to consider the merit of the case on the pretext that it was raised at the address stage. Whether the Respondents have any contract with the Appellant or have disclosed any cause of action and/or the legal capacity to institute this action against the Appellant in place of a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) called “Centre for Youths and Women Skills Acquisition”. Whether from the circumstances of this case, the Respondents have satisfactorily discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law. Whether it was proper for the trial Court to admit and rely on Exhibits ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C, which were uncertified public documents in reaching its decision (ground).

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHEN CAN A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT BE TAKEN?

---

“It is an elementary principle of law that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and for a Court to adjudicate on any issue brought to it, that Court must have the requisite jurisdiction. It is settled that issue of jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the final determination of an appeal by the highest Court of the land. See Adegoke v Adibi & Anor (1992) 5 NWLR (pt.242) 410, (1992) 6 SCNJ 136, (1992) LPELR – 95 (SC); Petrojessica Enterprises & Anor v Leventis Technical Company Ltd (1992) NWLR (pt. 244) 675, (1992) LPELR – 2915 (SC); Chief Etuedor Utih &Ors v Jacob Umurhurhu Onoyivwe & Ors (1991) 1 NWLR (pt166) 166, (1991) LPELR – 3436 (SC). In Ikeatu v Obi &Ors (1999) LPELR-6554 (CA) this Court had this to say on the same issue:
“The law is however settled that challenge to jurisdiction of a Court can be taken at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time in the Supreme Court. This is because a judgment or order given or made without jurisdiction is a nullity, an exercise in futility and a complete waste of the Court’s time.Thus, lack of jurisdiction in the Court deprives the judgment or order of any effect whether by estoppel or otherwise. See Josiah Cornellus Ltd v Ezenwa (1996)4 NWLR (pt.443) 391; Bronik Motors v Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296; Attorney General of Bendel State v Aideyan (1989)4 NWLR (Pt.118) 646; Tukur v Government of Gongola State (1989)4 NWLR (pt.117) 517 and Savannah Bank v Pan Atlantic (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.49) 212.
It follows therefore that raising the issue at address stage during the trial before the tribunal in the present case is quite in order. –

---

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGED

---

“Whenever issue of jurisdiction is raised or challenged by parties in a suit, it must first and foremost be considered and resolved before determining the action on merit. Where a Court embarks upon the determination of a matter and proceeded to give a decision, it will be null and void and liable to be set aside. See NNPC & Anor v Sele & Ors cited (supra) by Appellant’s counsel.-

---

COMPETENCE OF COURT – DETERMINANT OF THE COMPETENCE OF COURT

---

“In determining reasonable cause of action resort must be had to the writ of summons and the plaintiffs statement of claim. See Lexington International Insurance Company Ltd v Sola Holdings Ltd (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 465. It is a fundamental principle of law that it is the main claims of the plaintiff, which determines the competence of the Court to entertain the action. See Multi Purposes Ventures Ltd v A.G Rivers State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.522) 642; A.G. Kwara State v Olawale (1993)1 NWLR (pt.272) 645; Global Soap & Detergent Ind. Ltd v National Agency for Food and Drug Admin.& Control (NAFDAC) 201L) LPELR – 4202 (CA); Adesokan v Adegorolu (1991)3 NWLR (pt.179) 293; Egbe v Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 20. –

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFINITION OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“What is cause of action? A cause of action is defined as the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of a action, it is the factual situation which gives a person right to Judicial relief. See Egbe v Adefarasin (supra). In Buhari & Ors v Haddy Smart Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2009) LPELR-8362 (CA) this Court held that cause of action means no more than the bundle of facts and circumstance giving rise to the plaintiffs reasonable claims against the defendant and it is in the statement of claim that these have to be pleaded. See also Chevron Nig. Ltd v Lonstar Drilling Nig. Ltd (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.386) at 633. The authorities are therefore settled that the issue of locus standi is determined from the statement of claim. –

---

PROPER PARTY –DETERMINATION OF A PROPER PARTY BEFORE A COURT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE PROCEEDINGS

---

“In determining a proper party before a Court and its effect on the whole proceedings, the Supreme Court in Bakare v Ajose-Adeogun supra at 643 paras C-D had this to say:
“It is now fairly settled law that it is the cause of action as endorsed on the writ that determines the proper parties before the Court. And it is trite law that it is only when proper parties are before the Court that the Court will be competent to adjudicate on the suit otherwise the Court shall be incompetent. In other words when proper parties are not in Court there is lack of jurisdiction and locus standi as the action is incompetent.”
–

---

INCORPORATED TRUSTEE – EFFECT OF INCORPORATION OF AN INCORPORATED TRUSTEE

---

“There is evidence that Appellant is a corporate body with its registered office at M/P 13 Nyaya, Garki, Abuja. It falls under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Cap C20 LFN 2004 as an Incorporated Trustee and acquired its legal capacity by virtue of S. 586(1) of CAMA. The effect of incorporation on registration of a company, firm etc is to confer on it legal entity as a separate and distinct from its members. See Onuekwusiv Reg. Trustees Christ of Methodist Church –

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT –EFFECT OF A COURT’S DECISION WHERE IT LACKS JURISDICTION

---

“It is trite law that for a Court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. If proper parties are not before Court, the Court then lacks jurisdiction to hear it. See Goodwill & Trust Investment Ltd v Witt and Bush Ltd(2011) 8 NWLR 500 (2011) LPELR-1333 (SC) and Ikene v Anakwe (2000)8 NWLR (pt.669) 484; Peenok Ltd v. Hotel Presidential (1953) 4 NCLR 122. Where a Court embarks upon the determination of a matter and proceeded to give a decision on the matter without the requisite jurisdiction that decision will be null and void and liable to be set aside”. –

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE PROPER PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT

---

“Since proper parties were not before the Court, the trial Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. The entire proceeding is therefore a nullity. Where the Judgment appealed against is considered a nullity, there will be no need to pronounce on all issues, which would possibly arise at the retrial or in fresh action as the case may be. See Brawal Shipping (Nig.) Ltd v Onwadike (2000) ALL FWLR (pt.23) 1254 at 1271, (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt.678) at 387; Sanusi v Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527 at 550-551; Shasi v Smith (2009)18 NWLR (pt.1173) 330 and C.K & W.M.C Ltd v Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.1533) 487”. –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) Cap C20LFN 2004

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT