REV. DR. (MRS.) NKECHI ANAYO-ILOPUTAIFE & ORS V NASCO ESTATE CO. LTD. & ANOR

CORAM

O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

PARTIES

REV. DR. (MRS.) NKECHI ANAYO-ILOPUTAIFE & ORS

APPELLANTS

NASCO ESTATE CO. LTD. & ANOR

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, COMPANY LAW, COURT, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, LAW OF CONTRACT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LEASE, LOCUS STANDI, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Sometime in 1978, the Federal Government of Nigeria leased a large expanse of land, situate and lying along Lagos-Badagry Express Road, Lagos, to the 1st Respondent under certain terms and conditions on its usage. In October 1981, the 1st Respondent subleased part of the same land to the 2nd Respondent under the same conditions in the head lease. In 1993, the 2nd Respondent assigned the residue of its interest in the same portion of land to the trustees of the 3rd Appellant under certain conditions. The 1st Respondent alleged that in 1992, the Appellants unlawfully entered the land in dispute, built buildings thereon and started using it for religious purpose contrary to the user covenant in the head lease. Sequel to that, the 1st Respondent beseeched the High Court of Lagos, Ikeja Division, via a writ of summons seeking against the Appellants and the 2nd Respondent, a declaration that neither the Incorporated Trustees of the Faith Revival Ministries nor any member of the Faith Revival Ministries otherwise known as “Victory Christian Centre” or Faith Revival Ministries World Outreach” have any right title or interest in all that piece or parcel of land; an order to recover possession of the aforementioned land from the Incorporated Trustees of Faith Revival Ministries and all other persons who are in occupation of the said 4.861 Hectares of land or any portion thereof and an order of perpetual injunction restraining all members of the aforementioned Faith Revival Ministries otherwise known as “Victory Christian Centre” or Faith Revival Ministries World Outreach” from entering or re-entering the said land or any portion thereof without the consent of the Plaintiff.

The Appellants joined issue with the 1st Respondent and denied liability by filing a statement of defence, wherein they averred that the 1st Respondent consented to the assignment of 1993 and that the land in dispute is not being used for religious purpose. In addition, they raised the defence of laches, acquiescence, waiver and estoppel against the suit and counter claimed. The 2nd Respondent filed a statement of defence wherein it asserted that the 1st Respondent was aware of the sublease and that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

At the close of trial, the court in a considered judgment granted the 1st Respondent claim. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellants filed an appeal praying this court for an order setting aside the judgment of the court below and an order reversing the judgment of the trial court and entering judgment in favour of the Appellants. The 1st Respondent by a motion on notice prayed this court for an order striking out Grounds 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s Further Notice of Appeal as well as Issue 4 in the Appellant’s brief of argument on grounds of incompetence.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

 Whether the issue “whether or not the 3rd Appellant is properly incorporated in law to negotiate for and take the lease hold of the property in dispute” arises from the pleading to warrant the learned trial Judge deciding on that ground that the lease executed between the 4th and the 3rd Appellant was wrong, null and void and no lease.

 Whether the learned trial Judge at the Court below was justified in holding that the 3rd Appellant lacked the capacity to enter the Deed of Assignment dated 12th August 1993.

 Whether the learned trial Judge was right in deciding that use to which the 3rd Appellant put the property in dispute is outside the covenant as contained in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3.

 Whether having regard to the Respondent’s Statement of Claim the Respondent had any cause of action against the 1st to the 3rd Appellants to give jurisdiction to the Court below to entertain the Respondent suit.

 Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in failing to make any decision on the issue of standing by duly raised by the 1st to the 3rd Appellants.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPEAL

GROUND OF APPEAL – NATURE OF A GROUND OF APPEAL

“It is rudimentary law, known for its antiquity, that a ground of appeal, which is the focus of every appeal, must attack and disclose nexus with a decision that is the subject of appeal. In the sight of the law, a ground of appeal must be linked to and question a ratio decidendi, not an obiter dictum, of a judgment. Any ground of appeal formulated in nubibus runs foul of this cardinal rule of law and risks being struck out on account of incompetence, see Adelekan V. Ecu – Line NV (supra); Balonwu V. Governor of Anambra State (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 236; Lawrence V. A.- G; Fed. (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 484; Okonobor V. D. E. & S. T. Co. Ltd. (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 181; Odunukwe V. Ofomata (supra); FBN Plc. V. TSA Ind. Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247; D. T. T. Ent. (Nig.) Co. Ltd. V. Busari (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 387; Garuba v. Omokhodion (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1269) 145, Isaac v. Imaseun (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 250; Okafor v. Abumofuani (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) 117; Udom v. Umana (No.1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- MANNER OF RAISING AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

“Jurisdiction is the lifeline, linchpin, fulcrum, touchstone and spinal cord of any adjudication. It oxygenates any proceeding. In the premises of this enviable olympian status in adjudication, issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time before any court, trial or appellate, see Alioke v. Oye (2018) (Pt. 1651) 247; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66; Sulaiman v. FRN (2020) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1755) 180. It can be raised in any manner, even viva voce (orally) and without leave of court, see APC v. Lere (2020 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. It can be raised suo motu by any court without any irritation to the law, see Alikor v. Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF EVIDENCE, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ON THE HIGH COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL IN THE EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

“It is pertinent to place on record, upfront, that a flood of documentary evidence were furnished before the lower court by the parties. As a matter of fact, the case was fought substantially on documentary evidence. Interestingly, the case-law gives the courts the liberty to evaluate documentary evidence, see Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544. Admirably, the law, in order to foreclose any injustice, donates concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower court in evaluation of documentary evidence, see Gonzee (Nig.) Ltd. v. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 634; Olagungu v. Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225; Ayuya v. Yorin (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt 1254) 135; Eyibio v. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1325) 51; Odutola v. Mabogunje (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354); CPC v. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) 66; UTC (Nig) Plc. v. Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 221; Ogundalu v. Macjob (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1460) 96; Onwuzuraike v. Edoziem (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 215; Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529, C.K. & W.M.C. Ltd. v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 487; Emeka v. Okafor (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1577); 410; Okoro v. Okoro (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 506; D.M.V (Nig) Ltd. v. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652); Olomoda v. Mustapha (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 36; APC v. Marafa (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 383. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY ON COURTS TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WHEN RAISED IN ANY PROCEEDING

“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. Hence, I will obey this legal commandment so as not to insult the law. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI

LOCUS STANDI – EFFECT OF AN ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF LOCUS STANDI IN A PARTY

“It is trite 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 (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 401. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI

LOCUS STANDI – CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI

“From an etymological perspective, the cliché, locus standi, traces its ancestry to Latin Language which means: “place of standing”. In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority, see INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 167; Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra). Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants who have no interest in matters before it, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 562; Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230. For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra). Again, that he has sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations are in the danger of being infringed on, see Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497) 542; Nyesom v. Peterside (supra); Al – Hassan v. Ishaku (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra)”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

DETERMINATION OF THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PARTY – DUTY OF COURTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PARTY

“Nota bene, it is a statement of claim, or affidavit in originating summons, that is examined by a court in determining the locus standi of a party, see Nyesom v. Peterside (supra);Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo state (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320;INEC v. Ogbadibo L. G.(supra);Okwu v. Umeh (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra) Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra); A.-G., C.R.S. v. FRN (supra).However, chances of success of an action is irrelevant in considering locus standi, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra);Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra); Okwu v. Umeh (supra); Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (supra). PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT – YARDSTICK IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

“As already noted shortly, it is the statement of claim or affidavit, depending on the originating process employed in the commencement of an action, that is the yardstick with which to gauge the presence or absence of jurisdiction of court. Even though, it is the major determinant of jurisdiction of court, but it is not an exclusive one. There are others. One other determinant, which is relevant here, orbits around evidence received in the course of proceedings, see Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. CBN (1976) 1 AII NLR 409 at 424; NDCC v. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272; Nonye v. Anyiechie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 623; Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. T.R.C.B. Ltd. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 219; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66; Titilayo Plastic Ind. Ltd. v. Fagbola (2019) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1691) 88; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. OHMB (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Ekweozoru v. Reg. Trustees, S.A.C.N. (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1734) 51. Thus, the case-law grants an unbridled licence to the court to use evidence, whether parol or documentary, as the barometer to gauge the presence or absence of its jurisdiction. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

CANON OF INTERPRETATION – DUTY OF COURT IN APPLYING THE LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

“Remarkably, the law grants to the courts the unfettered nod to read a document holistically so as to reach and garner harmonious results of its content, see Ojokolobo v. Aremu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377/(1987) SCNJ 98; Unilife Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Adeshigbin (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; ACB v. Apubo (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; Mbani v. Bosi (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 400; Bunge v. Gov. Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573; Agbareh v. Minra (2008)2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378; Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt, 1188) 429; BFI Group v. BPE (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 209; Julius Berger Nig. PLC. v. T.R.C.B. Ltd. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 219. In addition, in construing a document, the court is enjoined by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, id est, to accord the words deployed therein their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishments, see UBN v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385, UBN Ltd. v. Sax (Nig.) Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 150; Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. Ltd. (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 168. I will pay due obeisance to these legal commandments, on canons of interpretation of document, in order not to hurt the law. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF CONTRACT

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – DEFINITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

“The ancient doctrine of privity of contract has been defined as “that connection or relationship which exists between two or more contracting parties”, see Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 201 at 231, per Fabiyi, JSC. The doctrine, which is part of our corpus juris, postulates, generally, that a contract cannot confer/bestow rights, or impose obligations arising under it, on any person except parties to it. Put simply, a stranger to a contract cannot gain or be bound by it even if made for his benefit, see T. E. Oshevire Ltd v. Tripoli Motors (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 1/(1997) 4 SCNJ 246; Owodunmi v. Registered Trustees, CCC Worldwide (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315; Makwe v. Nwukor (2001) FWLR (Pt. 63)/(2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 356; Union Beverages Ltd v. Pepsi Cola Int. Ltd (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) 1; UBA v. Jargaba (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1045); Nwuba v. Ogbuehi (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1072); Osoh v. Unity Bank Plc (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1358) 1; Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Ltd. (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) 96; Rebold Ind. Ltd. v. Magreola (supra); Reichie v. N.B.C.I (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1514) 274. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

PARTY, COURT, JURISDICTION

PARTY(IES) BEFORE THE COURT – EFFECT OF THE ISSUE OF PROPER/IMPROPER PARTIES ON THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER

“It is now settled, beyond any peradventure of doubt, that an issue of proper/improper parties touches and impinges on the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter before it. Indeed, “a person who asserts the right claimed or against whom the right claimed is exercisable must be present to give the court the necessary jurisdiction”, see Olariede v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390 at 406, per Eso, JSC; Ekpere v. Aforiji (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 220; Onwunalu v. Osademe (1971) 1 All NLR 14; Awoniyi v. Reg. Trustees of AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522; Mozie v. Mbamalu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466; Plateau State v. A.-G., Fed. (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61; G. & T. Investment Ltd. v. Witts & Bush Ltd. (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 500; Ogbebor v. INEC (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 1; CBN v. Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294; Moses v. NBA (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 59; Adeniran v. Olusokun II (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1673) 98; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (supra). PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI, JURISDICTION

LOCUS STANDI –WHETHER LOCUS STANDI HAS A BEARING ON THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

“As already noted, at the dawn of this judgment, locus standi comes within the purview of jurisdiction of court. Jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajamole v. Yaduat(No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Untltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1;Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IM SLR 300;Ebhodagbe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472;Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210;Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1; Nduul v. Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 548. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION, COURT

JURISDICTION OF COURT – INGREDIENTS OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

“A court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: “1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction”, see Modukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J.,Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Daro v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164;Okereke v. Yar’Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193;Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455;Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387; Nworka v. Ononeze-Madu (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 440.The three ingredients must co-exist in order to invest jurisdiction in a court. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES

CONDITION PRECEDENT –MEANING OF CONDITION PRECEDENT

“In the mind of the law, a condition precedent is: “the one that delays the vesting of a right until the happening of an event”, see Atalegbe v. Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 525) 537 at 562, per Uwais, CJN; Niger Care Dev. Co. Ltd. v. ASWB (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 493; A. –G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Jumbo United Co. Ltd. v. Leadway Ass. Co. Ltd. (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) 439”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION

LACK OF JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION ON A COURT

“Where a court is disrobed 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 trapped 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 O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JUDGMENT AND ORDER, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

DECISION OF COURT – DUTY OF A COURT TO SET ASIDE A NULL ORDER/ DECISION

“In the light of this expansive tour d’horizon on the locus standi, done in due obeisance to the law, the lower court’s decision was/is enmeshed in the intractable nest of nullity. In the view of the law, nullity denotes: “Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a case which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place; or which has absolutely no legal force or effect”, see Lasisi v. State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 133 at 146, per Ngwuta JSC; Ezenwaji v. U.N.N. (supra); Mamman v. Hajo (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 411. The consequence of a nullity is far-reaching. If a decision or proceeding is soiled by nullity, it is void and taken as it was never given or made, see Okoye v. Nigeria Const. & Furniture Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342. Moreover, such a decision or proceeding, in the view of the law, bestows no enforceable right on its beneficiary party, who possesses it, nor does it impose any obligations on its victim party, see Ajibola v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 628; Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265. The bounden duty of a court is to set aside a null order/decision ex debito justitiae in that it does not exist in law, see Mamman v. Hajo (supra); N.A.C.B. Ltd. v. Ozoemelam (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 376;Oyeyemi v. Owoeye (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COMPANY LAW

REGISTRATION OF UNINCORPORATED ORGANISATION – EFFECT OF REGISTRATION OF UNINCORPORATED ORGANISATION

“Generally, there exists, in law, incorporated and unincorporated bodies/organisations. The former is an association of persons with distinct legal personality such as companies. The latter pertains mostly to partnerships: relationships between persons carrying on business in common fetching them profits or rewards. There are bodies which encompass cooperative and friendly societies which are formed by individuals such as farmers, traders, artisans and producers of various goods for commercial purposes. Once such a society is registered, it earns the advantage of becoming a body corporate with perpetual succession with the concomitant power to hold property and enter into contracts. Such body corporate bears appellation of a corporation aggregate”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COMPANY LAW, LAW OF CONTRACT

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION – WHETHER AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION HAS THE CAPACITY TO DIRECTLY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS

Thus, unincorporated associations, much unlike incorporated body that is a person a ficta with juristic personality, lack the capacity to directly enter into contracts save through its members or trustees, see Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 386; Onuekwusi v. R.T.C.M.Z.C (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1243) 341. In Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558 at 595, Agbaje, JSC, adopted the definition of a corporation aggregate in these illuminating words:

A corporation aggregate is a collection of individuals united into one body under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with the capacity of acting in several aspects as a individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent period of its existence.

– PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES

EXHIBIT – MEANING OF AN EXHIBIT

“An exhibit denotes a document, record or other tangible objects, formally introduced as evidence in court, see Lucky v. State (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1528) 128. A court of law can only rely on a document tendered as an exhibit before it and vice versa, see Nigerian Ports Plc. v. B.P.P.T.E. Ltd (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 454; The People of Lagos State v. Umaru (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 584; Wassah v. Kara (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 374. In the wide realm of adjectival law, a rejected document cannot be relied on by the court, see Nigerian Ports Plc. v. B.P. PTE Ltd. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 454; Agboola v. State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 619, Wassah v. Kara (supra); State v. Ajayi (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1532) 196; Kekong v. State (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1596) 108. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COMPANY LAW

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION – WHETHER UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION CAN ENTER INTO PRE INCORPORATION CONTRACT

“The law grants ample latitude to an unincorporated association to enter into pre-incorporation contract through the medium of its members, as its trustees, pending its incorporation. The property, whether real or otherwise, acquired by the trustees will vest in the unincorporation association upon its registration, see Onuekwusi v. R.T.C.M.Z.C (supra). In Anyaegbunam v. Araka (supra), at 597, Katsina-Alu, JSC, (later CJN), incisively, proclaimed:

I must strees (sic) here that the Act permits pre-incorporation ownership of Land-see section 3 [of Land Perpetual Succession] Act Cap 98 LFN, 1958]. An unincorporated association can own property for its members. But for such property to vest, it must be made through persons who have been appointed trustees.

This ex cathedra authority was grounded on section 3 of the defunct Land (Perpetual Succession) Act which provision is in pari materia with the provision of section 596 (1) and (2) of the CAMA. It is a recognised canon of interpretation of statute that where a provision in a legislation is on all fours with a provision of another enactment that had already been interpreted by the courts, the court has the liberty to utilise the latter as the template for interpreting the former especially if they are coterminous and kindred legislations see A.G., Abia State v. A.G., Fed. (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 940); Bakare v. NRC (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1064) 606; Fasakin Foods (Nig.) Ltd. v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 126; CCB v. A.G., Anambra State (1992) 10 SCNJ/137. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COMPANY LAW

PRE INCORPORATION CONTRACT – BASIS FOR THE VESTING OF PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN PRE-INCORPORATION CONTRACT

“By virtue of section 696 (2) of CAMA, the property, or proprietary interest acquired in the pre-incorporation contract, will automatically vest in the association upon incorporation. In essence, the third appellant’s trustees, who entered into the contract of assignment of the demised premises, held the disputed land in trust for the third appellant pending its registration. Thus, the third appellant’s right over the disputed property was in incubation during the gestation period of its incorporation. In the mind of the law, the third appellant’s interest in the disputed property was in escrow as it was contingent upon the happening/occurrence of an event- its incorporation, see B. Manfag (Nig.) Ltd. v. M/S.O.I Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 109. The appellants acted in due consonance with the law. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF CONTRACT

TERMS OF A CONTRACT – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THEIR CONTRACT

“In law, contracting parties are bound within the province of the terms of their contract. Even the court is not allowed to read into or subtract from the terms of contract upon which the parties are consensus ad idem. A court is enjoined to construe terms of a contract in its exact content”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF EVIDENCE

CROSS-EXAMINATION – OBJECT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION

“It cannot be gainsaid that in our adversarial system of adjudication, the object of cross-examination is to test the credibility of an opponent’s case. It is meant to deflate and discredit the evidence-in-chief of a witness. It has the potential to perforate an opponent’s case and enhance that of the cross-examiner. It is used to test the veracity of a witness. It is the yardstick with which to measure the truth of evidence-in-chief of a witness. It affords the Judex the sufficient opportunity to watch and assess the credibility and reliability of a witness by watching his demeanour in the witness box, see Ayorinde v. Sogunro (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 466; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 521; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205; Udom v. Umana (No. 1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179; Alfa v. Attai (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1611) 59; MTN (Nig.) Comm. Ltd. v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 427; Adama v. K.S.H.A. (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 501; Tyonex (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pfizer Ltd. (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 125; Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 440. It has been described as a “noble art” which “constitutes a lethal weapon in the hands of the adversary to enable him effect the demolition of the case of the opposing party”, see Oforlete v. State (2000) 3 NSCQR 243 at 268 per Achike, JSC. Hence, any evidence elicited from the cross-fire of cross-examination, are, in the eyes of law, potent and run pari passu with the ones from evidence-in-chief, see Gaji v. Paye (2003) NWLR (Pt. 823) 583; Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 338. They belong to the cross-examiner, see Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205. As a matter of fact, the law views evidence procured from the heat of cross-examination as more reliable and compelling than the ones proffered in examination-in-chief, see Adeosun v. Gov., Ekiti State (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 321. Indubitably, cross-examination occupies an Olympian position in our corpus juris especially in the adjectival law. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF EVIDENCE

CROSS-EXAMINATION – EFFECT OF A PARTY’S FAILURE TO CROSS EXAMINE A PARTY ON A POINT

“It is settled law that where a party fails to cross-examine a party on a point, he is deemed to have admitted it, see Gaji v. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583; Akomolafe v. Guardian Press Ltd. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 338; Nwokocha v. A.-G, Imo State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 141; Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd. (2018)1 NWLR (Pt.1601)343”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAW OF EVIDENCE

ADMISSION – CONCEPT OF ADMISSION

“To start with, in the sight of the law, admission connotes a statement, oral or documentary, made by a party which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, see section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011; UBA Plc. v. Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 237; Oguanuhu v. Chiegboka (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588. It “is a concession or voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of certain facts; a statement made by a party of the existence of a fact which is relevant to the cause of his adversary; a voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action”, see Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 534 at 558 per Fabiyi, JSC; UBA v. Jaraaba (2007) 31 NSCQR 144; N.B.C.I. v. Integrated Gas (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 916) 617; Omisore v. Aregbesola(2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205; N.A.S. Ltd. v. UBA Plc. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 421. It is classified, in the stratification of evidence, as the best evidence against the party making it, see Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 133. It constitutes a concession against the interest of a party making it, see Onovo v. Mba (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391. Hence, in the view of the law, an admitted fact does not need any proof, see Our Line v. S.C.C. Nig. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCNJ 358; Jolasun v. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285; Offor v. State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 421; Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1497 542; Cole v. Jibunoh (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 499; Orlanezi v. A.-G., Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1561) 224; Mba v. Mba (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 177; Adeokin Records v. M.C.S.N (Ltd/GTE) (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 550; N.R.M.A & FC v. Johnson (2019) 2 NWLR (1656) 247. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES

ACQUIESCENCE – DEFINITION OF ACQUIESCENCE

“The issue impels this court to examine the doctrine of laches and acquiescence. In Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364 at z374-375, Kalgo, JSC, adopted the definition of acquiescence thus:

Acquiescence means assent to an infringement of rights either expressed or implied from conduct by which the right to an equitable relief is lost. It takes place when a person with full knowledge of his own rights and of any acts which infringe them, has either at the time of infringement or after infringement by his conduct led the persons responsible for the infringement to believe that he waived or abandoned his rights.

– PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAND LAW

ACQUIESCENCE – CONCEPT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ACQUIESCENCE

“The doctrine connotes that where a land owner stands by and knowingly, by his inaction, allows a stranger to develop his land in good faith, then he will be estopped from harvesting the benefit of the stranger’s labour. It is employed where it will be practically unjust to give a remedy to a party who has waived it or by his conduct, though not waiving it, yet puts the opponent in a situation in which it will be unreasonable to place him if it were afterwards to be asserted, see Oniwaya v. Ikuomola (1990) 7 SCNJ 147/(1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 617; Dadi v. Garba (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 411) 12; Kayode v. Odutola (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 659/(2001) 5 SCNJ 391; Owie v. Ighiwi (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 184; Adedeji v. Oloso (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 133; Chukwuma v. Ifeloye (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 204; Isaac v. Imasuen (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1511) 250. The law makes it incumbent on a party, who implores it as a shield, to plead it explicitly or in such a manner as to show that he relies on it as a defence, see Ilona v. Idakwo (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 53; Isaac v. Imasuen (supra). PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

LAND LAW

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE – DOCTRINE OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

“The equitable doctrine of laches and acquiescence does not allow a party to sit on the defence over the development on his property and to reap from the fruits of his adversary thereon. Equity, in its sanctuary, does not aid the indolent but the vigilant”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MEANING OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

“Miscarriage of justice, in law, denotes such a departure from the rules which pervade all judicial process as to make what happened not, in the proper sense of the word, judicial procedure, see Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 76. It signifies a decision or outcome of legal proceedings which is prejudicial or inconsistent with the substantial rights of a party. It implies a failure of justice and a reasonable probability of more favourable result of the case for a party alleging it, see Larmie v. DPM & Services (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 296) 775; Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 282; Aigbobahi v. Aifuwa (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 270; Akpan v. Bob (supra); Afolabi v. W,S.W. Ltd (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 286; Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 2) (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 523; Oke v. Mimiko (No.2) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1338) 332; Fredrick v. Ibekwe (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 467”. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COURT

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – EFFECT OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ON A PARTY’S CASE

“Where a decision of a trial court visits miscarriage of justice on a party’s case, it carries the liability of vacation by an appellate court. This is the bane of the decision of the lower court. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT –APPROPRIATE ORDER A COURT SHOULD MAKE WHERE IT LACKS JURISDICTION

“Where the jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter is divested by law, the order it makes is plain. It is one of striking it out, see Okolo v. UBN Ltd. (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87; Gombe v. P.W. (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402); CGG v. Ogu(2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366; Uwazuruike v. A.-G., Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 1; WAEC v. Adeyanju (2008) NWLR (Pt.1092) 270; Dairo v. UBN Plc. (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 347; Ikechukwu v. FRN (supra); Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 423; Onyero v. Nwadike (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 954; Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527. PER O.F.OGBUINYA, J.C.A