BUSINESS MEDIA LIMITED VS RADIX CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD

CORAM

PARTIES

BUSINESS MEDIA LIMITED APPELLANTS

RADIX CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent instituted this action claiming the sum of N10,308,990.00 (Ten Million, Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Naira) as money owed to him by the Defendant/Appellant and interest at the rate of 30% and 20% per annum until judgment and until final liquidation of the judgment debt respectively. The Defendant/Appellant was engaged and paid for a year by the Claimant/Respondent to run certain adverts for it in its publication. Less than a month into the contract agreement, the Claimant/Respondent claimed that it was dissatisfied with the content of the adverts and thus asked that it be discontinued until a resolution of the matter. Rather than resolve the issue, the Claimant/Respondent demanded for a refund of the consideration paid but the Defendant/Appellant maintained that it had discharged its obligations as contracted. Subsequently, in an effort to amicably settle the matter, the Defendant/Appellant wrote a letter dated the 17th day of June, 2009 wherein it purportedly admitted its indebtedness to the Claimant/Respondent.  The Claimant/Respondent filed its writ of summons signed by ADENIYI ADEGBONMIRE OF ALUKO & OYEBODE and statement of claim with a motion for an order entering final judgment on the grounds that the Defendant/ Appellant had no defence to the claim. Upon service of the processes on the Defendant, it filed its own processes with a written address showing cause why leave should be granted to her to defend the action. At the conclusion of the trial, summary judgment was granted against the Defendant/Appellant. Displeased by the decision of the trial court, the Defendant/Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

Whether the action in the court below was commenced in accordance with statutory prescription; andWhether the lower court was correct when it relied on a ‘without prejudice’ document to enter summary judgment of the respondent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ORGINATING PROCESS – REQUISITE FOR PREPARING AN ORGINATING PROCESS

‘‘Order 6; rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil procedure) Rules of
2004 then in force provided that:
‘Originating process shall be prepared by a claimant or his legal practitioner and shall be clearly printed on opaque foolscap size paper of good quality.’’ PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

LEGAL PRACTITIONER – DEFINITION OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER- S. 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER ACT, 2004

‘‘A legal practitioner is defined in S. 24 of the Legal Practitioner Act, 2004 as
‘A person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act of practice as a barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.’’ PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

STATUS OF PROCESS SIGNED BY A PERSON NOT IDENTIFIED AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER – A PROCESS SIGNED BY A PERSON NOT IDENTIFIED AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER DEPRIVES THE COURT OF THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR SUCH MATTER

‘‘There is no evidence that whoever signed the process is a legal practitioner. It is settled law that whenever such occurs the originating process is deemed incompetent and the court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the matter. See Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1042) 521 and N.N.B Plc, v Denclag Ltd (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt 916) 549 at 502-3? Para F-B ; Akingbehin v Thompson (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt 1083) 270 0 279; Sule v Nig. Cotton Board (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt5) 17; Lagos State v Dsunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 119) 552; Awoyemi v Fasuan (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt 996) 86 at 107 para A-B.’’ PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. High Court of Lagos State (Civil procedure) Rules of 2004.

2. Legal Practitioner Act, 2004.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT