CORAM

---

John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

SUNTRUST BANK NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. EATON ACQUISITIONS LIMITED (Suing for itself and on behalf of Promoters of Our Bank Limited (in formation)

2. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

 

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPELLATE JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT RULES, JUDICIAL DISCRETION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appeal arose from a ruling delivered on 02/08/2022 by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which dismissed a motion on notice filed by the appellant on 12/03/2021 pursuant to its notice of withdrawal filed on 22/03/2022. The original case involved a judgment delivered by the Federal High Court on 17/02/2021 in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/115/2021. The appellant, who was not a party to the original suit, filed a motion on 12/03/2021 seeking leave to appeal as an interested party. Upon realizing that the three-month period for appeal had expired on 17/05/2021, the appellant filed a new motion on 23/03/2022 incorporating additional prayers, including the trinity prayers. The appellant then filed a notice to withdraw the earlier motion. When the matter came up, the Court of Appeal ordered written addresses on the proper order to make following the withdrawal notice. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed, rather than struck out, the withdrawn motion.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appellant’s motion on notice filed on 12th March 2021 was set aside.

3. The appellant’s motion on notice, having been withdrawn for being incompetent, was struck out instead.

4. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have dismissed the Appellant’s application filed on 12th March 2021 when it was obvious that the Court had lost the requisite jurisdiction to grant the said application as constituted at the time it was withdrawn?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTIONS – EFFECT OF INCOMPETENCE ON PROPER ORDER:

---

“Where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a case, cause, matter, or suit, the proper order it should make is one striking same out, and not that dismissing it.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PURPOSE AND SCOPE:

---

“A preliminary objection should be an attack on the competence of an appeal, and not the manner, mode, or method of proffering arguments on an issue or issues in a brief of arguments.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

RULES OF COURT – APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION:

---

“As rules of Court are made to aid the Court in its primary duty and objectives, namely to do justice to the parties by deciding on the merits of their case. These rules are made handmaids to justice, and inflexibility of the rules will only serve to render justice grotesque.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

INCOMPETENT APPLICATIONS – PROPER ORDER TO MAKE:

---

“The law, as established by a long line of case law authorities by this Court, is that the proper order to make where a motion or an action is incompetent and/or not properly constituted is striking out and not dismissal.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT:

---

“A corollary from the above principle is that a Court is competent to inquire and make a preliminary finding on whether or not it has jurisdiction over a matter before it.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

TECHNICAL JUSTICE VERSUS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE:

---

“If strict observance of the rule of practice will produce injustice, then a Court of Justice will naturally prefer doing justice to obeying a rule which is no longer an aid to justice.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

COURT RULES – INTERPRETATION FOR JUSTICE:

---

“Thus, in cases where strict adherence to the rules would clash with this fundamental objective of the Court, the Court will adopt a liberal interpretation of those rules.” – Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

---

DISMISSAL VERSUS STRIKING OUT – PROPER APPLICATION:

---

“It is not appropriate to dismiss such a motion or appeal, as a dismissal suggests that the motion or the appeal was determined on the merits or finally.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS – COURT’S APPROACH:

---

“In the circumstances of this case, the lower Court ought to have struck out the application for leave to appeal, filed on 12/03/2021, which was alleged to be incompetent, so as to pave the way for the hearing and determination on the merits of the competent one.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

RULES OF COURT – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION:

---

“Rules of Court should be treated as handmaids of justice, with emphasis on substantial justice and not technical justice.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS – PROPER ORDER:

---

“The lower Court ran foul of this established position of the law when it dismissed the 12th of March 2021 motion of the appellant instead of striking it out.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JUSTICE VERSUS TECHNICAL RULES:

---

“It will therefore be undesirable to give effect to rules which will merely enable one party to score, not victory on the merits, but a technical knock-out at the expense of a hearing on the merits.” – Per MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS – JUDICIAL APPROACH:

---

“Justice would have it that the incompetent application filed on 12th March, 2021 be struck out, since there was in existence a competent application seeking the same relief already filed.” – Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Court of Appeal Act, 2004

3. Court of Appeal Rules, 2021

4. Federal High Court Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT