CORAM

---

Okon Efreti Abang-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ishaq Mohammed Sani-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi-Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

TECNOBAT FITTING AND FIXTURES LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF BILTMORE ESTATE UNITED RESIDENTIAL AND STAKEHOLDER ASSOCIATION (BEURASA)

2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

3. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORYRESPONDENT(S)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JURISDICTION, JUDICIAL BIAS, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, COMPANY LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Maitama delivered on 24th April, 2024. The 1st Respondent (The Incorporated Trustees of Biltmore Estate United Residential and Stakeholder’ Association) had filed suit at the lower Court on 24th October 2023 seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the owners and occupiers of the property within Biltmore Homes Estate, Galadimawa District, Abuja are entitled to basic infrastructure facilities within the estate.

Upon being served with the originating processes, the Appellant (Tecnobat Fitting and Fixtures Limited) filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court on 17 grounds. The Appellant did not file a defense to the originating process but entered appearance under protest. The lower Court dismissed the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Appellant and granted injunctive reliefs pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court, the Appellant filed an appeal of six grounds on 8th May 2024. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeal on 5th June 2024, and the parties subsequently filed their respective briefs of argument.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The Court held that the allegation of bias leveled against the learned trial Judge by the Appellant was unfounded.

3.The Court further held that the lower Court was right to have assumed jurisdiction over the 1st Respondent’s action as it disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

4.The Court affirmed the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered on 24th April, 2024.

5.No order was made as to costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether in the circumstance of this case, the learned trial Judge has not exhibited bias against the Appellant to justify the Court in nullifying the entire proceedings of 24th April 2024.

2.Whether the learned trial Judge, considering the facts and arguments before it, was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection for lacking in merit.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ALLEGATION OF BIAS – STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH BIAS:

---

“My lords, allegation of bias or likelihood of bias against a Judge is one that should be treated seriously and not based on speculation and must be proved by a cogent, reliable, positive and direct evidence. In the instant appeal, the complaint of bias or impartiality leveled by the Appellant against the learned trial Judge remains in the realm of a mere accusation as counsel made no effort to establish the allegation so raised in this case.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

ALLEGATION OF BIAS – PROOF OF BENEFIT OR INTEREST:

---

“What is more, the Appellant failed to demonstrate what pecuniary benefits or any benefit at all that the learned trial Judge stood to gain by his pronouncements. Therefore, the allegation of bias leveled against the learned trial Judge by the Appellant in this appeal is unfounded and I so hold.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

APPEALS AS OF RIGHT – WHEN LEAVE OF COURT IS NOT REQUIRED:

---

“The Notice of Appeal is hinged on grounds of law. It is therefore not incompetent as alleged by the 1st Respondent. The Appellant did not therefore require any leave, of Court before filing same. I so hold.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS – APPEALS AS OF RIGHT:

---

“In the instant case therefore, the starting point here is to answer the question whether the six grounds of appeal in this case are grounds of law or facts or mixed law and facts? Therefore from a careful perusal of the entire substance of the Appeal before the Court, it is calling for the questioning and determination of the impartiality of the lower Court as guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the effect that every person has the right to a fair hearing when their civil rights and obligations are being determined.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM:

---

“My lords, the law is settled that when jurisdiction of a Court is challenged, the Court must have recourse to the Writ of Summons and statement of claim of the claimant in order to determine if the action is within the jurisdiction of the Court.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION – DETERMINATION BY EXAMINING STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

---

“Therefore, when an objection is raised as in the instant case that the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, it is the statement of claim that has to be examined. Accordingly, I have carefully examined the statement of claim (see pages 5 – 15 of the Record of Appeal) and to my mind, it discloses a reasonable cause of action as the 1st Respondent among other reliefs sought for a declaration that as the owners and occupiers of the property situate within the area of land known and described as Biltmore Homes Estate Galadimawa District Abuja are entitled to basic infrastructure facilities within the estate.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

CORPORATE LEGAL ENTITY – POWER TO SUE AND BE SUED:

---

Section 830(1)(c) ‘from the date of registration the trustees shall become a body corporate by the name described in the certificate and shall have power to sue and be sued in its corporate name as such trustees’.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

BOARD RESOLUTION – NECESSITY FOR FILING SUIT:

---

“My lords, I have carefully scrutinized the 1st Respondent’s Writ of Summons (Statement of Claim and the accompanying processes attached as well as the provisions of Sections 830 & 837 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2022 and from a literal interpretation of Section 837 of CAMA there is nothing in the said provision requiring that before an action can be instituted in Court by a duly registered association a board resolution must be tendered or exhibited.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT – RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF LAWS LIMITING ACCESS:

---

“It should be noted that citizen’s accessibility to Court to vent real or imaginary grievances is the hallmark or distinctive feature of a civilized society which upholds the rule of law as a way of life. It is a right constitutionally guaranteed. It is, therefore, now a well- accepted cannon of interpretation of status that any law which seeks to deprive a citizen of any of his constitutionally guaranteed rights must be construed strictly by the Courts against the law makers.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

IRREGULARITY VS INCOMPETENCE – EFFECT ON JURISDICTION:

---

“Accordingly, there is a distinction between irregularity and incompetence. The Court may condone irregularity except when it is shown that a miscarriage of justice will occasion which is not the case here. The Court cannot however condone incompetence as incompetence oust the jurisdiction of Court. However, irregularity of this nature as in the instant case will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

ORIGINATING PROCESS – REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY:

---

“By the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2(3) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 there are two requirement to be met in filing Originating Processes. These requirements are: i. The Originating Process be signed by a legal practitioner of the Claimant and ii. Be certified by the Registrar of the Court upon verification of same.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

VALIDITY OF WRIT OF SUMMONS – SIGNATURE BY LEGAL PRACTITIONER:

---

“A critical look of the Originating Processes will reveal clearly that the 1st Respondent fully complied with the conjunctive requirement by the signature of Zanti Tamar Kolais, Esq. duly ticked, and her seal affixed on all the Originating Processes. It has been consistently held by this Court and the vertex Court that the most important consideration is that the Writ was issued by a legal Practitioner whose name was clearly and boldly written on the list of counsel.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – NEED FOR PROMPT DETERMINATION:

---

“It is long settled that once a Preliminary Objection is raised, it must first be considered and resolved as it can make or unmake the outcome of the proceeding. The justification for the prompt action is obvious because of the effect of its outcome. In other words, it could either bring a proceeding to an abrupt end at the Preliminary state or streamline it down by excluding factors which may not legitimately or otherwise be accommodated.” – Per ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

•Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

•Companies and Allied Matters Act 2022

•High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018

•Court of Appeal Rules

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT