JOHN AGBO VS THE STATE
June 6, 2025O. ARABAMBI V. ADVANCE BEVERAGES INDUSTRIES LIMITED
June 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (CA) 66176
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ILORIN
Wed Jan 4, 2006
Suit Number: CA/IL/39/2004
CORAM
ADEREMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH
PARTIES
SURAJUDDEEN M. JIMOH APPELLANTS
SAMSON TUNDE OYINLOYE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent who was the Applicant before the lower court filed an application for an interlocutory injunction, for “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, their workers, agents, assigns and privies from further intermeddling with or trespass on the plots of land and the houses thereon covered by customary rights of occupancy No. 31, 32 and 44 either by carrying out the threat of forcible ejection of the Plaintiff and his tenants or in any way whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of the substantive case before this Honourable Court.” Both parties were heard on the application, and the learned trial Judge in his ruling granted the application. The Defendant now Appellant was dissatisfied with this ruling, and has as a result appealed to this court by a notice of appeal contending that in the absence of the proper parties being joined in the application that the trial court ought to have ruled that the application was incompetent.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
None
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LACK OF JURISDICTION – CONSEQUENCES WHEN COURT ACTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
“It is trite law that a court that acted without jurisdiction did so in vain, no matter how well the proceedings were conducted. – National Bank Of (Nig.) Ltd. V. Weide & Co. (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 9 – G 10 SCNJ 147, (1996) 8 NWLR (PT. 465) 150; Ejike V. Nwankwo Ifeadi (1998) 6 SCNJ 87; (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 561) 323.”
COURT, PARTIES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT – DUTY ON A PLAINTIFF TO BRING ALL PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT
“It is the duty of the plaintiff/respondent to bring before the court all the parties that are necessary for the effectual determination of this case.
In the case of Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 6 SCNJ 290 at 322; (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116 at 180, the Supreme Court per Ayoola, JSC held as follows:
“The duty of a plaintiff to bring to court a party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of the case has been stated in several cases, (See Ekpere v. Aforije (1972) All NLR (Pt. 1) 220), where the action was struck out because the proper defendants were not made parties.”
COURT, PARTIES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PARTIES – DUTY ON AN APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT ALL NECESSARY PERSONS ARE MADE PARTY TO THE ACTION
“In the case of Awoniyi V. Reg. Trustee Amorc (supra) at p.148 – 149, of SCNJ, and p. 533 of NWLR it was held as follows:
“I do not hesitate to say that the ground upon which the applicants’ motion is filed is unsustainable due to procedural wrongs. The first error is the failure of the applicant to make both the Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Inspector-General of Police parties to the applicants’ motion. It is trite that parties against whom complaints are made in an action must be made parties to such action. See Uzor v. Nigerian Stores Workers Union (1973) 9 – 10 SC 35. It is an elementary procedure in prosecuting civil claims that all parties necessary for the invocation of the judicial powers of the court must come before it so as to give the court jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought. See Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390 and Okafor v. Nnaife (1973) 3 SC 85.The failure of the applicants to make the Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Inspector-General of Police as necessary parties has rendered the applicants’, motion incompetent.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act|
