Lagos State Traffic Management Authority & 3 Ors V. Johnson Esezobo

Areas of Law:

ACTION, APPEAL, FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, JUDGEMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summary of Facts:

230 V-BOOT on a Federal Highway, is a gross violation of his right to freedom of movement guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and also under the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. The Defendants/Appellants filed a counter- Affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiff/Respondent application. In its ruling the lower Court held that the alleged forceful seizure of the vehicle with the imposition of N 25,000.00K (Twenty Five Thousand Naira Only) and N 2,500.00k as fines (Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira Only) are illegal. The Court also ordered the release of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s vehicle and the payment of N 5000.00K (Five Thousand Naira Only) per day as damages for the unlawful detention of the vehicle. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the Defendants/Appellants filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Held:

Appeal Dismissed.

Issues for Determination:

• Whether the trial court was competent to assume jurisdiction in view of the non-existent of 1st Appellant either as a corporate body of statutory corporation at the time of the institution of this case on the 3rd of October 2003
• Whether the arrest and detention of the Respondent’s Mercedes Benz and eventual issuance of notification of fine constitute a violation of the Respondent’s right to fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 constitution.
• Whether the lawful detention of the respondent vehicle preparatory to prosecution in view of the provisions of the laws allowing same amounts to violation of the Respondent‘s right to immovable property.
• Whether there was in existence reliably convincing evidence by the Appellants to controvert the affidavit evidence of the Respondent.

 

Rationes:

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME OF A PROCEEDING EVEN ON APPEAL

“Authorities abound on the settled position of the law that the issue of jurisdiction is a notorious one that can be raised at any time of a proceeding even for the first time in an appeal. The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental to any proceeding as it goes to the competence of the court see Oloba Vs Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 84) 508: Olutola Vs UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 905) 416: Elugbe Vs Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 905) 319: Zakari Vs Nigerian Army (2015) LPELR- 24721 (SC): Ibrahim Vs Lawal (2015) LPELR (SC).” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

JURISDICTION – IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

“It has been stated over and over again so much more that it has been firmly established beyond any dint of controversy right from the time of Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 that jurisdiction is the life and blood of every adjudicatory process. A court must be properly seised of the matter before it, otherwiseany proceedings conducted thereon shall be deemed a nullity.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – AN ACTION INSTITUTED AGAINST A NON JURISTIC PERSON CAN BE AMENDED

“Where an action is brought against a body and such body is not a juristic person at the time of the institution of the action, such a body is not a competent party. Naming such an incompetent/non-juristic person as a party is not a misnomer, that is, the use of the wrong name of a juristic person, which could be amended to substitute a juristic person. See Nigerian Nurses Association & Anor v A-G Federation (1981) 11 – 12 SC (REPRINT) 1; Alhaji Nurudeen Akinola Lawal v NEPA (1976) 3 SC (REPRINT) 116; Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd v General Manager, G.B Olivant Ltd & Anor (1961) ALL NLR 21.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – PARTIES TO AN ACTION MUST BE JURISTIC OR NATURAL PERSONS OTHERWISE THE ACTION IS INCOMPETENT

“As a general rule, a Plaintiff commencing an action and the person to be made defendant to the action must be juristic persons or natural persons existing at the time action was commenced, otherwise the action will be incompetent and the court will lack the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. See Okechukwu & Sons V Ndah (1976) NMLR 368.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – EFFECT OF SUING A NON JURISTIC PARTY

“Suing a non-juristic party renders whatever proceeding conducted thereon a nullity”. PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – IN ANY CLAIM AGAINST A STATE GOVERNMENT THE PROPER DEFENDANT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

“In any claim or suit against the Government of a State, the proper defendant is the Attorney-General of the State. It is also a legal personality.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

MISTAKE OR ERROR IN JUDGMENT- IT IS NOT EVERY MISTAKE OR ERROR IN A JUDGMENT THAT WILL RESULT IN INTERFERENCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BY THE APPELLATE COURT

“It is not every mistake or error in a judgment that will result in the interference with the decision of a trial court by the Appellate Court. Courts are presided over by human beings and being human, they are prone to mistakes and slips in the course of execution of their judicial functions. Such slips or errors are not swept under the carpet but are corrected and amended by the Appellate Courts in the interest of justice. See Philip Nnaemeka- Agu (CON): Manual of Brief Writing in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Nigeria (Revised Edition) by Tom Anyafulude (2012) at P. 73; Ndulue V Ibezim [2012] 12 NWLR (PT 780) 139 at 151 – 152.” – PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – THE RELEVANT LAW APPLICABLE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION IS THE ONE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE

“The law is settled that the relevant law applicable to a cause of action is the one that was in existence as at time the cause of action arose. In Rossek & Ors v A.C.B Ltd [1993] 10 SCNJ 20; [1993] LPELR – 2955 (SC) at pp. Ill – 112, the Supreme Court, PER BELLO JSC held:
“It is trite law that the substantive law existing at the time a cause of action arises governs the determination of theaction and the rights and obligations of parties must be determined in accordance with the substantive law when the cause of action arises. A change of law after the cause of action has arisen will not affect accrued rights and obligation unless the change is made retrospective: Attorney-General of Lagos State v Dosunmu [1989] 2 NWLR (PT 111) 522; Alao v Akano [1988] 1 NWLR (PT 71) and Uwaifo v Attorney-General of Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124. See also Obiweubi v Central Bank Of Nigeria (2011) LPELR -2185 (SC).” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

BRIEFS OF ARGUMENT –ESSENCE OF BRIEFS OF ARGUMENT

“The essence of briefs of argument is to assist the court in its progressive efforts towards achieving substantial justice in every given circumstances and not the contrary.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

Statutes Referred To:

Central Licensing Authority Law Cap C8 Laws of Lagos State 2003
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
Enforcement Procedure Rules 1978
Lagos State Traffic Management Authority Law No 9 of Vol. 37 now Cap L91, 2004
Road Traffic Law Cap RIO Laws of Lagos State 2003