MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF BENUE STATE V. ULEGEDE
June 20, 2025MENAKAYA VS. MENAKAYA
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 11989
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Oct 5, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 49 SC. 32/2001
CORAM
M.L. UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A. BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. AYOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
I. M. B. SECURITIES PLC. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
By a writ of summons, the Plaintiff claimed in the High Court against the 1st Defendant the sum of N2.5 million being the outstanding balance owed in respect of an overdraft facility granted by the Plaintiff to the said 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff also claimed, as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendant, the same amount together with interest upon the breach of their obligations under the contract of guarantee entered into by the parties and arising out of the overdraft facility. The 3rd defendant, by a motion on notice applied to the trial court for an order to set aside the service of the writ of summons and the Statement of Claim in the suit on the ground that they were purportedly served on him after the expiration of the 12 months life span of the writ of summons. The plaintiff applied by motion on notice for the renewal of its writ of summons by a further period of six months. The learned trial Judge granted the Plaintiff’s prayer. Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial court, the 3rd Defendant, appealed to the Court of Appeal. Whilst this appeal was pending, the 3rd Defendant/Appellant successfully contested election to the office of the Governor of Lagos State. He was accordingly sworn in as Governor of Lagos State. When the appeal was listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal, learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent applied for the adjournment of the appeal sine die until such time as the 3rd Defendant/Appellant would cease to hold office as Governor of Lagos State. The Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision granted the plaintiff’s application and adjourned the appeal of the 3rd defendant/appellant sine die until he vacated the office of Governor of Lagos State. Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the 3rd defendant/appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
This appeal failed and was dismissed but the order of the Court of Appeal adjourning the appeal pending before it sine die was set aside. In substitution was an order striking out the interlocutory appeal before the Court of Appeal with liberty to relist the same after the appellant had vacated his office as the Governor of Lagos state.
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 308(1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Court of Appeal was right in declining to entertain the appeal of the appellant pending before it until the appellant vacated his office as the Governor of Lagos State
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
“This is that such interpretation as would serve the interest of the Constitution and best carry out its object and purposes should be preferred. Its relevant provisions must be read together and not disjointly and where the words of any section are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution.” Per A. I. IGUH, JSC
ISSUES DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE COURT
“A court of law, particularly an appellate court, may only hear and decide on issues raised on the grounds of appeal filed before it and an issue not covered by any ground of appeal is incompetent and will be struck out.” Per A. I. IGUH, JSC
WHEN IT IS DETERMINED THAT A SUIT MAY NOT BE CONTINUED
“When it is said that a suit may not be continued, all the parties to the suit must be held to the restraining order. Just as a Plaintiff may not continue the suit, so must a defendant not do so once it is determined that a suit is of the character, which must not be further, continued under Section 308(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.” Per A. I. IGUH, JSC
CASES CITED
Chief D O Ifezue v Livinus Mbadugha and Anor (1984) 5 S.C. 79 at 101.Management Enterprises Ltd. and Another v. Jonathan Otusanya (1987) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 55) 179Oniah v Onyia (1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 99) 514 at 529Adelaja v Fanoiki and Another (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 131) 137 at 148.Odiase v Agbo (1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 170. Ajao v Ashiru (1973) 11 S.C. 23 Atanda v Lakanmi (1974) 3 S.C. 109Adegoke v Adibi (1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Part 242) 410.Okafor v Anaife (1972) 3 E.C.S.L.R. 261Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 99) 566 at 578.Ojo v Babalola (1991) 4 N.W.L.R. (Part 185) 267 at 280.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
