KATOL INVESTMENT LIMTED v. UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PLC

CORAM

PARTIES

KATOL INVESTMENT LIMTED APPELLANTS

UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PLC RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents instituted an action against the Appellant at the Lagos High Court for possession of the property in dispute, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The Respondent claimed that the Appellant was granted a 3 year lease of the property which was extended to 10 years, and that the Appellant was in the habit of neglecting to pay its rent after the initial payment. The Appellant also sublet the property to other companies without remitting any payment to the Respondent. As a result of the Appellant’s persistent refusal to pay, the Respondent authorized its solicitors to issue notice to recover possession to the Appellant. The Appellant on the other hand claimed that after the property was renovated by them with the Respondent’s permission, and that the Respondent instead of refunding the sum for the renovation or converting same to rent, it instituted an action to recover possession against them. At the conclusion of the trial, the Learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed. The Appellant’s counsel however raised in its notice of preliminary objection the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the matter.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Respondent

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LEGAL PROCESSES – WHETHER IT IS VALID FOR LAW FIRMS TO SIGN LEGAL PROCESSES

“It is trite law now and no longer a matter of dispute that any originating process signed by a law firm is incompetent. This is because Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act defines a legal practitioner as “a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor; either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.” By Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor, if and only if his name is on the roll. Thus, a law firm whether an incorporated entity or not is not a legal practitioner within the contemplation of the Legal Practitioners Act and is incompetent to sign legal processes”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION- IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

“Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. If there is no jurisdiction, then there is no basis for any further action”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHEN IT CAN BE RAISED

“An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

“No Court can entertain a matter when it lacks jurisdiction. That is why it is always advisable to raise the issue of jurisdiction timeously to save time and cost and to avoid a situation where after conclusion of hearing and judgment the entire proceeding is declared a nullity”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION – RESTRICTIONS ON PARTIES TO TAMPER WITH THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

“Being an issue of jurisdiction, it cannot be waived, acquiesced in, or compromised by the parties”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF COURT – FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

“To determine whether a Court has jurisdiction, the Courts have always applied the golden rule as encapsulated in the time-honored dictum in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 to the effect that a court is competent when:
(a) 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
(b) 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
(c) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Where all the three conditions listed above for the exercise of jurisdiction co-exist, a Court is said to have competence and jurisdiction. However any defect in competence would be fatal as the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided”. PER IYIZOBA, J.C.A

CASES CITED

Adegoke v. Adibi & Anor (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 410;Adigun v. Osaka (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) p. 95 at 131 paras. B-E, 134 paras B-C.Ajuwa v. SPDC (Nig) Ltd (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 64 at 96 paras B-G;Akingbehin v. Thompson (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 279Alawiye v. Ogunsanya (2012) LPELR-19661 (SC)Bikay Engineering Ltd v. Governor Ondo State (2010) LPELR-3877 (CA).C.G.G. (Nigeria) Limited V. Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366 at 385Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. v Warri North L.G.C. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) p. 28 at 44 paras B-E.FBN Plc Vs Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1348) 444 at 456Gbileve & Anor v. Addingi & Anor (2014) LPELR-2214 (SC)Matari v. Dangaladima (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 266;N.N.B. Plc. v Denclag Ltd (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 916) 549 @ 502-3 F-B;Ogundele v. Agiri (2009) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 135 @ 165Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 521Okarika Vs Samuel (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1352) 19 at 24Oke v. Oke (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 224.Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 140;Oketade v. Adewunmi (2010) 8 NWLR (pt. 1195) 63,Petro Jessica Enterprises Ltd & Anor v. Leventis Technical Coy Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675;SLB Consortium v. N. N. P.C. (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317.The Nigerian Army v. Samuel and Ors. (2013) 14 NWLR (pt. 1375) 466 at 483

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Legal Practitioners Act

2. High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT