CORAM
PARTIES
1. SAJE SHIPPING NIGERIA LIMITED2. M.R.S. OIL & GAS LIMITED APPELLANTS
IGBOLOGUN, ALORE, IGBOSU & 10 (TEN) OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE 1ST SCHEDULE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court wherein the Court entered judgment against the Defendants/Appellants and struck out their Notice of Appeal which was pending. The Defendants/Appellants filed an application at the lower Court seeking to set aside the judgment delivered by the Court on ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the Respondents were non-juristic persons that cannot sue or be sued. The court dismissed the Defendants/Appellants’ application to set aside the Judgment. Displeased by the ruling of the lower Court, the Defendants/Appellants filed this Notice of Appeal challenging the Jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit as the Respondent are unknown to law, hence they are not legal entities and therefore do not possess the requisite legal competence to institute the action at the lower court. The Respondents on the other hand contends that they are juristic persons recognized and established by the Law of Lagos State House of Assembly.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the lower court lacked the jurisdiction ab initio to hear and determine the action and make bonding orders therein including the default judgment entered on 06 October, 2017. (Ground 3) Whether the failure of the lower court to issue hearing notice of the proceedings of 14 June, 2017 to the Appellants was a breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing and all subsequent proceedings including the default judgment delivered on 06 October, 2017 ought to have been set aside by the lower court in the interest of justice. (Grounds 1 and 2) Whether the lower court ought not to have entered final judgment without calling evidence when the claims were for pecuniary/special damages which require strict proof in law. (Ground 4)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION- QUESTION OF JURISDICTION GOES TO THE ROOT AND CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME
“The question of jurisdiction is undoubtedly vital to every form of adjudication, as it goes to the root and foundation of any action or cause before the court. Without it, a court or tribunal cannot exercise any adjudicatory competence over the matter or dispute as constituted by the parties. It is a notorious matter that if a court does not possess the requisite jurisdiction, any proceedings conducted thereby shall be a nullity. As a matter of law, it can be raised at any time in the proceedings before the court, even for the first time on appeal, at the Apex Court. See the cases of Madukolu V Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 341; NDIC v CBN [2002] 7 NWLR (PT 766) 272; Gaji V Paye [2003] 8 NWLR (PT 823) 583; –
LEGAL PERSONALITY – WHAT DETERMINES LEGAL PERSONALITY?
“It is not in doubt that before a court can competently and properly be seised of a matter, the parties before it must be juristic persons, who are just known to law but possesses the legal competence to institute an action before such court. The Supreme Court In Cotecna International Limited V Churchgate Nigeria Limited & Anor (2010) LPELR – 897 (SC),
“It is trite law that for a Court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the Court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the Court, then the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit.”
Put simply, only juristic persons have the capacity to initiate and defend proceedings in court. See Shittabey V A-G., Federation [1998] 10 NWLR (PT 570) 392; Principal Government Secondary School, Ikachi V Igbudu [2006] ALL FWLR (PT 299) 1420. For the avoidance of doubt, juristic personality is not merely conferred on an entity, it is denoted by the enabling law. See the decision of the Court in Abubakar V Yar’adua (2008) LPELR – 51 (SC), where TOBI, JSC (of blessed memory) held:
“Juristic or legal personality can only be denoted by the enabling law. This can either be the Constitution or a Statute. It the enabling law provides for a particular name by way of juristic or legal personality, a party must sue or be sued in that name. He has no choice to sue or be sued in any other name. In other words, juristic or legal personality is a creation of statute and a party which seeks relief must comply strictly with the enabling statute. The position of the law is stringent and as strict as that.”
The rationale behind the position is that law suits are in essence the determination of legal rights and obligations in any given situations. See The Registered Trustees Of The Airline Operators Of Nigeria V N.A.M.A [2014] 8 NWLR (PT 1408) 1 SC; Maersk Line & Anor V Addide Investments Limited & Anor (2002) LPELR – 1811 (SC).
LEGAL PERSONALITY- CONFERMENT OF LEGAL PERSONALITY
“Put simply, the attribute of legal personality is conferred upon an entity by the statutes, being the enabling law. It is of no moment that the body is unincorporated.” –
SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS- STATUS OF THE REGISTRAR OF A COURT ON EVIDENCE RELATING TO SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS
“There is no doubt in my mind that the Registrar of the court is a stakeholder in a matter regarding the question as to whether a party was served the requisite notices notifying him of the matter before the court. Who best can give an independent and impartial representation of facts relating to the service of court processes if not an officer of the court itself.” –
SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE-DUTY OF COURT TO CONFIRM SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICES ON AN ABSENT PARTY
“It is no doubt the duty of the court to confirm the service of hearing notices on an absent party. It is wrong and ipso proper fatal for a trial court to assume that party was on notice and proceed, without a physical proof that the notice was served on a party. The Supreme Court in A-G., Rivers State v Ude [2006] 17 NWLR (PT 1008) 436, held that
“where a court adjourns a case beyond a date when the litigant have notice of hearing of the case, the court has a duty to notify the parties of subsequent adjournment.”
–
SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE- SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS AN IMMUTABLE REQUIREMENT OF FAIR HEARING
“It is an immutable requirement of fair hearing implies that each party to a dispute before a court or tribunal must be accorded opportunity to state his own side of the case. This is the position of the Supreme Court in Achuzia V Ogbomah (2016) LPELR – 40050 (SC), where the Court emphasized on the fundamental nature of the service of hearing notice on parties in the adjudicatory process and the effect of failure to serve such hearing notice, where required. Referring to its decision in Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd & Anot V Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6, the court, per PETER-ODILI, JSC held:
“The service of process on the Defendant so as to enable him appear to defend the relief being sought against him and due appearance by the party or any counsel must be those fundamental conditions precedent required before the Court can have competence and jurisdiction. This very well accords with the principles of natural justice.” What I am trying to say in effect is that when there came about that failure to service notice of the date of hearing on the Appellant it means that the requirement of fair hearing has not been observed and the resultant decision that followed is a nullity and cannot be allowed to stand.”
See also Leedo Presidential Motel Ltd V Bank Of The North Ltd & Anor (1998) LPELR – 1775 (SC) where it was held:
“Where a party is entitled to notice of a proceeding and there is failure to serve him, the failure is a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the competence or jurisdiction of the court to deal with the matter – see: Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd & Anor. V. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6, 27 where the dictum of Lord Greene, M.R. in Craig v. Kanseen (1943) KB 256 at pp. 262263; (1943) 1 ALL ER 108, 113 was cited with approval, Lord Greene has said: “The question we have to deal with is whether the admitted failure to serve the summons upon which the order in this case was based was a mere irregularity, or whether it was something worse, which would give the defendant the right to have the order set aside. In my opinion, it is beyond question that failure to serve process where service of process is required, is a failure which goes to the root of our conceptions of the proper procedure in litigation. Apart from proper ex parte proceedings, the idea that an order can validity be made against a man who has had no notification of any intention to apply for it is one which has never been adopted in England. To say that an order of that kind is to be treated as a mere irregularity, and not something which is affected by a fundamental vice, is an argument which, in my opinion, cannot be sustained.” As Nnamani, JSC rightly pointed out in Skenconsult, (supra), the above is also the attitude of Nigerian courts on the issue of proper procedure. The learned Justice of the Supreme Court, said at p. 26 of the report: “The service of process on the defendant so as to enable him appear to defend the relief being sought against him and due appearance by the party or any counsel must be those fundamental conditions precedent required before the court can have competence and jurisdiction. This very well accords with the principles of natural justice.”
–
ACADEMIC ISSUES – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES
“A court’s duty is to consider and pronounce on live issues and not otherwise; it will therefore be futile to consider the extant issue, which as I said earlier, is academic and/or hypothetical, as it will amount to making an empty sound on the issue. See Dahiru & Anor v APC & Ors (2016) LPELR – 42089 (SC); Ardo v INEC & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41919 (SC).
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT