NIGERIA SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND v WING COMMANDER PULLEN EGBE IYEN (RTD) & ORS

CORAM

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

NIGERIA SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND APPELLANTS

1. WING COMMANDER PULLEN EGBE IYEN (RTD)

2. CHIEF OF AIR STAFF

3. THE AIR COUNCIL

4. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent Wing Commander Pullen Egbe Iyen (RTD) was tried, convicted and sentenced by the General Court Martial in his absence.  The General Court Martial made an order confiscating his properties including No 46 Textile Mill Road, Benin City Edo State which was sold by the Nigeria Air -force to one Alhaji Ado Isyaku Adamu, who subsequently sold the property to the  Appellant (Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund). The 1st Respondent appealed against the conviction of the General Court Martial to the Court of Appeal which set aside the conviction. Aggrieved with the judgment, the Nigeria Air Force appealed to the Supreme Court where the judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed with slight modification giving the Appellants liberty to re – arraign the 1st Respondent before the appropriate court. Thereafter the 1st Respondent by an originating process at the Federal High Court sought an order of the court to take immediate possession of his movable and immovable properties that was confiscated. The court gave judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent commenced an action to recover his property from the Appellant. The Appellant as an interested party sought for and obtained leave to appeal against the decision of the lower court hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to make an order which affected the propriety interest of the Appellant, who was not a party in suit No. FHC/LCS/493/2002.? (GROUND 1 AND 2 )

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he relied on omnibus prayer to grant a specific relief of reversing the sale at No. 46 Textile Mill Road, Benin City?

3.Whether or not the alternative order made by the lower court does not provide a viable alternative which makes this appeal an academic exercise.” ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INHERENT POWERS OF COURT-SCOPE -AND WHEN CAN BE INVOKED

“Every court is equipped with inherent powers, inherent powers can be invoked in the interest of justice to supplement the statutory jurisdiction of the court, where the exercise of such jurisdiction as it is may result in injustice, such exercise of inherent powers is what makes the court fill sufficiently fulfilled that it can do substantial justice where necessary in a particular case.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

NULLIFIED JUDGMENT -EFFECT OF

“It is settled that a Judgment that is a nullity has no legal validity and can confer no right nor impose any obligation on anybody.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- DUTY OF COURT TO DETERMINE FIRST WHERE FILED

“It is the law that whenever preliminary objection is filed, it must be heard and determined first because if the objection is sustained, the necessity to hear the appeal on the merit may be obviated.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

NEMO DAT QUAT NON HABET- MEANING OF

“The law is settled that nobody can give what he does not have or possess, See: Nemo dat quat non habet.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

COURT-FUNCTION OF A COURT

“The primary function of a court is to do substantial justice between the parties to a dispute and not to do abstract justice.” PER IYIZOBA JCA

“IMPOSSIBLE ACT”-MEANING OF

“An impossible act” is an act that cannot be done, as it is beyond the implementation of an average human being applying average strength and dexterity.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

JOINDER OF PARTIES-WHAT A COURT SHOULD CONSIDER IN RESPECT OF

“For any court of law to determine necessity to have a party before it in order to determine issues in controversy between the litigating parties, the following question remain important:
(1.) Is the cause or matter liable to be defected by the non joinder?
(2.) Is it possible for the court to adjudicate on the cause of action set – up by the Plaintiff unless the third party is added as a Defendant
(3.) Is the third party a person who ought to have been joined as a Defendant.
(4.) Is the third party a person whose presence before the court as defendant will be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate on the questions involved in the cause or matter.” PER ABUBAKAR JCA

CASES CITED

Abacha Vs. State (2001) 3 NWLR (PART 699) 35 AT 45.Ajiboye Vs. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (PART 998) 628;Ajomale Yaduat (NO. 2 (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 191) 266Eliochin (Nig) Ltd Vs. Mbadiwe (1988) 1 NWLR PART 14.47,Kalu Vs. Odili, 5 NWLR (PART 240) PAGE 130NBC & 1 Vs. Intergrated Gas Nig.Ltd (2005) 4 NWLR (PART 916) 617Oguma Associated Co. Ltd Vs. Ibwa Ltd (1988) 1 NWLR (PART 73),UBN VS. Fajebe Foods (1994) 5 NWLR (PART 334)Universal Oil Ltd VS. NDIC (2008) 6 NWLR PART 1083Soyanwo Vs. Akinyemi (2001) 8 NWLR (PART 714) PAGE 95.Willouahby vs. International Merchant Bank (Nig) Ltd (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt 48) 105

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Edo State Property Conveyancing Laws of Edo State 2002

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT