CORAM
PARTIES
NIGERIA AGIP OIL COMPANY LIMITED
Hyacinth Amadi
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent before the High Court of Rivers State brought an action against the Appellant wherein by his Statement of Claim, he sought for Special damages; an Order of payment of the sum of Sixty Thousand Naira (N60,000.00) per day as loss of earning; and ?10,000,000 million being general damages. At the end of the trial, the lower Court entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the above Judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing two Grounds of Appeal, which with leave of Court was later amended, with the amended Notice of Appeal containing seven Grounds of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain this matter when the Respondent’s Writ of Summons issued on 10th December, 2009 was not signed by either the Respondent or his legal Practitioner as required by Order 6 Rule 2 (3) of the High Court of Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Soldiers who purportedly burnt the Respondent’s vehicle were agents of the Appellant. Whether the trial Court’s award of special and general damages against the Appellant is justifiable in law.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SIGNATURE ON COURT PROCESSES – CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF A PLAINTIFF OR HIS COUNSEL TO SIGN A WRIT OF SUMMONS
“The said Writ of Summons which is on pages 1-2 of the Record of Appeal is evidently not signed by either the Legal Practitioner or his Client, i.e. the Plaintiff as required by Order 6 Rule 2(3) of the High Court of Rivers State Civil Procedure Rules, 2006.
In Okpe vs. Fan Milk Plc & Anor (2017) 2 NWLR (pt. 1549) 282, Muhammad, JSC had this to say on the importance of validity of Originating process:
“Any Originating processing is the foundation stone of any proceedings in any Court. It thus affects the jurisdiction of that Court. No Court of law can assume jurisdiction through a defective Originating process. It is does, the proceedings however well conducted will amount to a nullity. As a nullity, nothing more can competently be considered in this appeal.”
See also Kente vs. Ishaku & Ors (2017) 12 NWLR (pt. 1578) p. 94.
In Okarika vs. Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (pt. 1352) 19, Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC said thus in this point:
“The full Court of the Supreme Court held firmly and following the footsteps of OKAFOR vs. NWEKE (2007) 3 SCNJ 185 that once the initiating process be it Writ of Summons or Notice of Appeal is not signed or authenticated either by the litigating party or the legal Practitioner on his behalf the that process is invalid and the jurisdiction of the Court ousted.”
The law is settled on this point and there is no need over flogging it. Failure of either the Plaintiff or his Counsel to sign the Writ of Summons at the lower Court divested the lower Court of its jurisdiction. I therefore resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.-
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL MUST RESOLVE ALL ISSUES RAISED
“I shall refrain from resolving other issues in this appeal as this appeal is being decided on what is now trite law and settled. In Owuru & Anor vs. Adigwu & Anor (2018) 1 NWLR (pt. 1599) p. 1, ONNOGHEN, JSC (as he then was)opined as follows on this point:
”Generally speaking the Court of Appeal being an intermediate Court has a duty to consider all issues placed before it by the parties for determination. The reason is to give the Apex Court the benefit of their view on all the issues should there be a further appeal to the Supreme Court. There is however an exception. In Federal Ministry Of Health & Anor vs. Comet Shipping Agencies (2003) 9 NWLR (pt. 1145) 193 at 220thus held as follows:
“In respect of the second issue of the parties, generally, it is settled that except in this Court all issues ought and must be considered or dealt with by the intermediate Court. In other words, unless or except in the clearest of cases, an intermediate Court such as the Court of Appeal should endeavor to resolve or pronounce on all issues put before it. See also Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Co. Ltd. vs. Soleh Boneh Nig. Ltd. (2000) 5 NWLR (pt. 656) 322; Owodunni vs. Registered Trustees Of Celestial Church Of Christ & 3 Ors (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 675) 315 at 326.”
This case in this appeal falls within the exception to the rule that all issues raised must be resolved by the intermediate Court. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Armed Forces Act, Cap. A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|High Court of Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006|