Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 33018
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jan 24, 2013
Suit Number: SC. 217/2005
CORAM
PARTIES
1. MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT ADAMAWA STATE2.MINISTRY OF FINANCE, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY ADAMAWA STATE3. DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAND & SURVEY, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE ADAMAWA STATE4. TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENT SANITATION APPELLANTS
ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBUALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU ENTREPRISES LTD RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, DEFECTIVE ORIGINATING PROCESS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Old Gongola State in demolition of illegal Structures pulled down the Respondents Structures. The Respondents thereafter petitioned the Government claiming compensation for their Structures that was pulled down. They were paid partly and before the outstanding could be paid, Adamawa State was created from the Old Gongola State. The Respondents then petitioned the Land Used and Allocation Committee of the Adamawa State Ministry of Land and Survey for the outstanding balance. The Government set up a committee who recommended that the payment be made with the interest accrued to it , this was also approved by the State Government. Despite the approval by the State, the Respondents were not paid, hence they approach the Court for redress. The trial court partly grant there reliefs, the Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeal where all their reliefs were granted, this prompted the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to either entertain the respondents’ appeal against the 2nd appellant arising from a statute barred suit or grant any of the reliefs Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondents’ appeal and deliver judgment against the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th appellants who are non-juristic persons Whether the lower court was right to have entertained paragraph 59 (4), (5), (7), (8) and (10) of the respondents’ ASOC with compound interest respectively when the respondents never claimed compound interest in any of the said relief Should the lower court have entertained an appeal which arose from a defective process at the trial court? Was the lower court decision against the 2nd appellant incompetent (sic) as a result of it being statute Were the 1st,3rd, 4th and 5th appellant’s non-juristic person against, whom the lower court should not have entertained an appeal Did the lower court err for allowing the respondents’ claim in paragraphs (59), (2) (3), (4), (7), (8), (9) and 10 of the amended statement of claim Whether the originating process is valid Whether the plaintiff/respondents action is statute barred.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LEGAL PRACTITIONER – DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND A LAW CHAMBER
“While a legal practitioner is a lawyer whose name is on the call roll, his law chambers is not, hence it cannot perform the duty of a legal practitioner and perhaps cannot be addressed as learned counsel or Learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN as the case may be.”
ORIGINATING PROCESS- EFFECT OF SIGNING AN ORIGINATING PROCESS BY A LAW FIRM
”The fatal effect of the signing of an Originating Process by a law firm is that the entire suit was incompetent ab initio. It was dead at the point of filing. This highlights the painful realities that confront a litigant when counsel fails to sign processes as stipulated by law”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Legal Practitioners Act|