CORAM
JUSITICE IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE —- JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
JUSTICE CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
JUSTICE MUSLIM SULE HASSAN —— JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. SPEAKER, NASARAWA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
2.NASARAWA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
APPELLANTS
OCHA P. ULEGEDE, ESQ. -(Carrying on business in the name of Ocha P. Ulegede & Co)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent at the Nasarawa State High Court, sitting in Lafia, commenced the substantive suit by a writ of summons against the Defendants/Appellants wherein they sought declaratory relief, special and general damages and interest on the sum claimed and the judgment sum.
Upon being served with the Writ, the Appellants filed a joint statement of defence and gave a notice of their intention to object to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, on the grounds that the High Court of justice of Nasarawa State having determined Suit No. NSD/LF06d/2015, between Ocha P. Ulegede (Carrying on Business in the name of Ocha P. Ulegede Esq., v. Speaker Nasarawa State House Of Assembly and Nasarawa State House of Assembly, in the Ruling of Justice Aisha B. Aliyu, on the 6th day of July, 2018, the instant suit is incompetent and liable to be struck out or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
That the present suit constituted re-litigation of the former suit which Hon. Justice Aisha made various findings of facts which the Respondent did not appeal against, and as such, the findings of Justice Aisha remains valid until set aside.
The Respondent in his counter affidavit stated categorically that the instant suit is more and not same with the previous suit determined by the Ruling of Justice Aisha. Respondent contended that all the preliminary Objection of the Appellants at the previous suit called Justice Aisha to determine was whether there were proper parties before the Court. That issues were not joint on the suit, but Justice Aisha went ahead to determine matters that are meant to be determined at the hearing of the substantive suit and made far-reaching decision as to the merit of the suit, which is not the mandate of the Court by the Preliminary Objection before the Court. That the ruling merely determined whether the Court had jurisdiction based on the parties before her or not and the findings of the court is not a judgment dismissing the entire suit, but a ruling striking out the case of the Respondent.
The trial court dismissed the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Appellant against the competence of the Respondent’s suit, hence, this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit of the Respondent, and if not, whether the Respondent’s suit is an abuse of court process?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION – CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION
“The appropriate authority on the concept of Jurisdiction that will guide this court in resolving the issues canvassed in this appeal is the locus classicus case of Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR 24023 (SC) at page 9 – 10, paras F – D, where the Supreme Court laid down the three ingredients of jurisdiction in the following words:
“Before discussing those portions of the record, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a court. Put briefly, a Court is competent when
(1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the 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. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.”
The Apex Court by that decision made it pertinent that if any of the three conditions is not fulfilled, it is fatal to the jurisdiction of the court”. PER M.S.HASSAN, J.C.A
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None