YAKEEN ALABI ODONIGI v. AILERU OYELEKE
April 3, 2025SGT. STEPHEN IDAHOSA VS CHRISTOPHER IDAHOSA
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (SC) 26218
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jan 16, 2020
Suit Number: SC.1338/2014
CORAM
ELIAS CHIEF, JUSTICE, NIGERIA
Amina Adamu Augie
PARTIES
TRANSNAV PURPOSE NAVIGATION LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant sued the 3rd Respondent for monetary reliefs in respect of a Chartered Credit Agreement (CCA) and in order to secure its claim, obtained an interlocutory order of arrest vide an exparte application. The trial court however refused the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ (who were interveners in the suit before the trial court) application but stayed further proceedings in the suit. The trial court did not consider the rights and interests of the Respondents in their application, which caused them to appeal to the lower court. The lower court found that the trial court breached the Respondents’ rights to fair hearing and remitted the matter back to another judge for expedited hearing. The Appellant not comfortable with this has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower court was right to have held that the decision of the trial court to defer the determination of the 1st and 2nd respondents’ application in deference to its earlier order staying further proceedings pending the conclusion of arbitration was unwarranted, unreasonable and constituted a breach of their right to fair hearing. Whether the order of the lower court directing that the case be remitted back to another judge of the trial court for an expedited hearing of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ application ought to be allowed to stand having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
“ACTION IN REM” – DEFINITION OF AN “ACTION IN REM”
“One of the most attractive and most significant features of the admiralty jurisdiction of the lower Court is the possibility of instituting an “action in rem”, that is directly against a Vessel, usually by getting an order arresting the Vessel after a Writ of Summons has been issued, wherein the Vessel is made the Defendant to a suit. The aim of this is usually to ensure that the Plaintiff is assured of reaping the fruits of judgment in the event of a successful outcome, due to the peculiar nature of the shipping industry. This Court in Pacers Multi-Dynamics Ltd V. The M.V. Dancing Sister & Anor (2012) LPELR-784S(SC), Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, defined an action in rem thus: “An admiralty action in rem is a proceeding against a ship, the res, where the ship is arrested. By the arrest the owner of the ship is compelled to enter appearance and defend the ship. The owner is enjoined to answer to the judgment of the Court to the extent of his interest in the property.”
COURT – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF COURT TO DISPENSE WITH ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS OR PROCESSES BEFORE IT
“It is not in dispute and indeed the law is very well settled that a Court of law has a duty to dispense with all pending applications and/or processes before it, before reaching a final decision in a cause or matter. Certainly the failure of a Court to do so, without a valid reason would amount to a violation of the right of the party not heard to fair hearing and such violation would render the proceedings liable to be struck out. See Per Kekere-Ekun, JSC in PDP & Ors V. Ezeonwuka & Anor (2017) LPELR-42563(SC).”
ORDER OF COURT- WHETHER COURT CAN GRANT AN ORDER AGAINST COMPLETED ACTS
“It is trite law that a Court does not grant an order against completed act. See Ayorinde v. AG of Oyo State (1966) 3 NWLR (PT.434) 20, The Regency General Of Olota V. Sodlende (1998) 6 NWLR (PT.552) 72; Lafferi V. Nal Merchant Bank (Plc (2001) 3 WRN 106.”
ORDER OF COURT – EFFECT OF A COURT ORDER MADE AGAINST PERSONS NOT JOINED AS PARTIES TO A SUIT
“The effect of order(s) made against persons not joined as a party is that such order is a nullity and of no effect. Where persons who ought to be joined to the suit had orders made against them by the trial judge, such proceedings ought to be a nullity, being a denial of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ right to fair hearing. See Ovunwo & Anor V. Woko & Ors (2011) 7 SCM 207 AT 231-232, Nurtw & Anor V. Rtean & Anor (2012) 3 SCM 171 AT 178-179, Per Bage, JSC in Oyeyemi & Ors V. Owoeye & Anor (2017) LPELR-41903(SC).”
PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING – APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING
“On the critical question of whether the trial court breached the respondents’-right to fair hearing when that court failed to determine the application dated 19th September, 2017, an answer thereto takes one to Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended which provides thus:
In the determination of the Civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.
The interpretation of Section 36 (1) CFRN has been variously done by the Courts particularly the Apex Court so as to make the meaning and import now common place as to include access to court and fair hearing. See Abubakar Audu v FRN (2013) 53 NSCQLR 456 at 469; Alioke v Oye & Ors. (2018) LPELR-45153 (SC) 1 at 26 – 27; Ekiyor & Anor. v Bomor (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.519) 1 at 11 & 14; Ariori v Eiemo (2012) 4 LC 460 at 492; Menakaya v Menakaya (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt.738) 206 at 263; Amadi v NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (764) 76 at 109 – 110; Bakare v A. G. Federation (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.152) 516 at 535.”
BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF A BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“First of all, the right to fair hearing is fundamental to every judicial proceeding in our legal system. It is the bedrock of our justice system such that its breach in our judicial system automatically vitiates the entire proceedings. See Chukwuma v FRN (2011)13 NWLR (pt 1264) 391; Awoniyi v Registered Trustees AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (pt 676) 522.”
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – DUTY OF COURTS TO CONSIDER AND PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT
“It follows therefore that the court is under obligation to hear and determine all matters properly brought before it fairly. The court of law is duty bound to consider and pronounce on all issues properly committed before it for determination by contending parties. In the case of FAAN v WES (Nig) Ltd (2011) 8 NWLR (pt 1249) 219 at 237, this court per Muhammad, JSC held as follows:-
Indeed, it is the duty of a court to entertain and decide on the merit or otherwise of any application brought before it by any party notwithstanding the perceived strength or weakness of such an application. It is a party’s basic and constitutional right which he cannot be denied of. See also Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & Anor v Simeon Monokpo & Anor (2003) 18 NWLR (pt 852) 346.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|Court of Appeal Act, 2004|Supreme Court Act|
