ADENIYI v. REGD TRUSTEES OF CCC, NIGERIA DIOCESE & ORS
(2020)LCN/14111(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, March 20, 2020
CA/IB/M.282/2015(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal
Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal
Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
SUPREME EVANGELIST DR. MAROMIPIN ADENIYI (National Coordinator Of CCC Nigerian Dioceses, For The Pastor And Head Of CCC Worldwide, Supreme Headquarters, Port Novo, Republic Of Benin) APPELANT(S)
And
(1) THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST, NIGERIA DIOCESE (2) MR. GODWIN BOLANLE SHONEKAN (3) EMMANUEL MOBIYINKA OSHOFA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT OMISSION TO ASK FOR THE PRAYER FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS FATAL TO THE APPLICATION
I am of the view that the omission to ask for the prayer for leave to appeal as an interested person is fatal to the application.
In CHUKWU VS INEC (2014) 10 NWLR PART 1415 PAGE 385 AT 408-409 Paragraphs A-B. It was held among others that:-
“The first prayer a person seeking leave to appeal as an interested party must seek is for leave to be made a party in the case pursuant to Section 243 (a) of the 1999 Constitution. It is not just the trinity prayers that the applicant should seek. His first prayer should be leave to be made a party as a person having an interest in the case.
The other three prayers viz: enlargement of time to seek leave to appeal; leave to appeal and extension of time within which to appeal, will follow if the application is made outside the time prescribed for appealing under Section 24 (2) of the Court of Appeal Act. The last three prayers are wholly dependent on the first prayers as the other prayers cannot succeed unless the appellant is first made a party in the case…” PER BADA, J.C.A.
FACTORS TO BE SHOWN TO SUCCEED IN AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL
In order to succeed in an application for extension of time to appeal, an applicant must show:-
(a) Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
(b) And grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. PER BADA, J.C.A.
THE TERM “LOCUS STANDI”
The term Locus Standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. It is a Constitutional requirement to enable a person to maintain an action and it is limited to the prosecution of matters relating to the civil rights and obligation of the Plaintiff.
A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See the following cases:-
– ADESANYA VS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOTHER (Supra).
– BARBUS & CO. NIG. LTD VS OKAFOR – UDEJI (Supra).
In order to have Locus Standi to sue, the Plaintiff must show sufficient interest in the suit before the Court. The criterion for sufficient interest is whether the person seeking redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship arising from the litigation. PER BADA, J.C.A.
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By an application filed on 17/11/2015 the party-Interested/Applicant prayed for the following orders:-
“(1) An order granting extension of time within which the party Interested/Applicant will seek leave to appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice A. O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit No- HCL/07/2006.
(2) An order granting leave to the party Interested/Applicant to appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice A. O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit No- HCL/07/2006.
(3) An order granting extension of time within which party Interested/Applicant will appeal against the judgment of Honourable Justice A. O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit Number- HCL/07/2006.
(4) An order deeming the Notice and Grounds of Appeal already filed and served as having been duly and properly filed and served.”
The grounds upon which the application is based are as follows:-
1
“(a). Reverend Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ (CCC) is the spiritual head of the church worldwide and he is also head the Supreme Committee of the church, and has his seat/office at the Supreme Headquarters Porto Novo, Republic of Benin.
(b). The Celestial Church of Christ (CCC) is one and indivisible worldwide, under one pastor who is also the spiritual head of the church worldwide in person of Reverend. B.A. Adeogun with his office at Supreme Headquarters Porto Novo Republic of Benin.
(c). The Nigerian Diocese of the Celestial Church of Christ (CCC) is one of the Dioceses of the Church worldwide which are subordinate to and under the control of the pastor of the church worldwide.
(d). The subject matter of the suit number HCL/07/2006 was the appointment of the Reverend Pastor and spiritual head of the Celestial Church of Christ (CCC) worldwide as enshrined in the Constitution of the Nigerian Diocese of the Church, 1980, which prompted the Court to make orders and pronouncement affecting the Reverend Pastor and Spiritual head of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide, Supreme Headquarters, Porto Novo, Republic of Benin, who was not
2
a party in the suit.
(e). The Pastor and head of the Celestial Church of Christ worldwide is therefore dissatisfied with the Judgment but can only appeal with leave of this Honorable Court.
(f). The Party interested/Applicant herein is the representative of the Reverend Pastor, having being appointed as the Coordinator of the Celestial Church of Christ (CCC), Nigerian Diocese, vide pastoral decision in the year 2009, and he brings this Application for and on behalf of the Reverend Pastor.
(g). The Party Interested/Applicant is already out of time and needs the order of the Honorable Court for extension of time to be able to appeal against the Judgment of the lower Court.”
The application is supported by a 30 paragraphs affidavit pertinent paragraphs of which are paragraphs 2 to 29 set out as follows:-
“(2) I bring this application for and on behalf of the Reverend Pastor of the church worldwide, Supreme headquarters, Porto Novo, Republic of Benin.
(3) The Pastor of the church worldwide Supreme Headquarters Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin appointed me as the National Coordinator of Nigeria Diocese of the Church, vide a
3
Pastoral Decision dated the 28th day of September, 2009. Copy of same is hereby attached as exhibit “A”.
(4) By virtue of my position, I am very conversant with the facts of this matter and I have the authority and consent of the Reverend Pastor of the Church worldwide, to depose to this affidavit.
(5) Nigerian Diocese of the Church is one of the Dioceses of the church and it is accordingly under the control and spiritual leadership of the Pastor of the church worldwide.
(6) The Church during the lifetime of Pastor/Founder, Papa S.B.J Oshoffa was a single; united and indivisible church worldwide where peace, love and brotherhood reigned Supreme at every strata of the Church throughout the world, Nigerian Diocese included.
(7) The Nigerian Diocese of the Church has been engulfed by torrent of crises immediately after the demise of the Pastor/Founder, Reverend S.B.J Oshoffa.
(8) The crisis led to multiplicity of suits, allegations and counter allegations, disunity, rancor, disregard for the Constitution of the church, emergence of multiple illegal Pastors. The crisis continues unabated.
(9) The Pastor/Founder of the Church
4
late Rev. S.B.J Oshoffa caused a Constitution known and cited as the Celestial Church of Christ, Nigerian Diocese Constitution 1980 to be prepared and put in operation after he had endorsed same in 1980.
(10) The Celestial Church of Christ, Nigerian diocese Constitution, 1980, hereinafter called The Constitution regulates the activities of the church and its members worldwide. Copy of the Constitution is hereby attached as exhibit “B”.
(11) Under the Constitution mentioned in Paragraph 10 (Supra) the pastor of the church is the leader of the Supreme Committee of the church and the spiritual head of the church worldwide who has his office at the Supreme headquarters, Porto-Novo, republic of Benin.
(12) The Supreme Committee of the Church and the Pastor in Council, Supreme Headquarters Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin are the highest decision making body whose approval is not only essential but also imperative before decision on any matter relating to any Constitutional provision of the Church can be taken.
(13) According to the provision of the Constitution, 1980, incumbent Pastor of the Church must appoint his successor.
5
(14) Rev. Pastor S.B.J. Oshoffa appointed Rev. B.D. Agbaosi as Pastor and Spiritual head of the Church worldwide in a meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1984, before his death in 1985 in compliance with the tenor of the Constitution. Minute of the meeting is herewith attached as exhibit “C”.
(15) Rev. Pastor B.D. Agbaosi also appointed Rev. B.A. Adeogun as the Pastor and Spiritual head of the Church worldwide before his death in the year 2010.
(16) Rev. Pastor B.A. Adeogun is the incumbent Pastor of the Church and has his office at the Supreme headquarters Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin in accordance with the provision of the Constitution 1980.
(17) The claims of the Respondents herein, who were the parties at the lower Court in suit number HCL/07/06, were centered on issues concerning the appointment of Rev. Pastor of the church worldwide which prompted the learned Judge A.O. Asenuga to make pronouncement affecting the Pastor and Supreme head of the church worldwide.
(18) Rev. Pastor B.A. Adeogun, the incumbent Pastor of the Church worldwide was not made a party in the suit mentioned in paragraph 17 (Supra).
6
(19) Reverend Pastor B.A. Adeogun is dissatisfied with the Judgment in suit number HCL/07/06 and decided to Appeal against the Judgment as an Interested Party.
(20) Rev. Pastor B.A. Adeogun was not aware of the suit number HCL/07/06 until I informed him in June this year.
(21) I was also not aware of the existence of the case mentioned above until Judgment thereon was delivered.
(22) I became aware of the matter in June this year after Judgment thereon had been delivered and I obtained the certified true copy of the Judgment. Copy of same is hereby attached as exhibit “D”.
(23) When I inform Pastor B.A. Adeogun about the matter, he instructed me to take copy of the Judgment to our solicitor Mr. G.A. Babalola for his consideration and appropriate step(s) thereto.
(24) I accordingly briefed our solicitor who immediately took up the matter.
(25) I have health challenges for which I was taking treatment from my Doctor. Dr. Adebola Oni of Temi Bola Specialist Hospital, No.33, Adeyemo Street, Beside the Light Gospel Church, Oke Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State. The sickness became aggravated after I have discussed this matter with our solicitor, Mr. G.A.
7
Babalola and I was admitted on the 20th day of June and discharged on the 25th day of September 2015. I obtained the medical report and copy of same is hereby attached as exhibit “E”.
(26) Because of the reason stated in paragraph 25 (Supra) I could not get in touch with our Solicitor to give him the requisite facts and documents to enable him file this application on time.
(27) I am now fully recovered and ready to prosecute this appeal without further delay.
(28) Our Solicitor, Mr. G.A. Babalola informed me and I verily believed him that he filed only the Notice and Grounds of appeal when he did not see me to furnish him with the necessary documents with which he would prepare and file application for leave. Copy of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal is hereby attached as exhibit “F”
(29). Mr. G.A. Babalola further informed me and verily believed him that:
(a) It is necessary to seek and obtain the leave of the Honorable Court to be able to file an appeal as an interested person
(b) The time within which to file the application for leave has elapsed.
(c) It is imperative to seek and obtain the order of
8
this Honorable Court for extension of time to file the application for leave.
(d) Time to file the appeal has also elapsed and we need to seek for order granting extension of time to enable us file the appeal.
(e) It is only this honorable Court that can extend time to enable us file the application for leave and notice and grounds of appeal.
(f) It is in the interest of Justice to grant this application and the Respondents will not be prejudiced if this application is granted.”
There is a 6 paragraphs Counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent, pertinent paragraphs of which is paragraph 5(a) to (n).
“5. The 1st Respondent denies paragraphs 1 through to 30 of the Applicant’s Affidavit aforesaid and all accompanying Exhibits and states as follows:
(a) The Applicant has no interest in this matter being neither a member of the 1st Respondent nor a Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ.
(b) The Reverend Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ, Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin, on whose behalf the Applicant makes this application, also has no interest in this matter.
(c) The judgment of the
9
Honorable Trial Court delivered on the 26th March, 2015 by Honorable Justice A.O. Asenuga of Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, does not apply to or affect the Applicant in any way.
(d) That contrary to paragraph 3 of the Applicant’s Affidavit, the Reverend Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ, Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin has no authority over the Celestial Church of Christ, Nigerian Diocese.
(e) The Celestial Church of Christ Nigerian Diocese Makoko Village, Yaba has always been the worldwide headquarters of the Celestial Church of Christ and has NEVER been under the control of the Reverend Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ, Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin.
(f) There was never a Constitution known and cited as the Celestial church of Christ, Nigerian Diocese Constitution 1980. All appointments, provisions etc. relating to this Constitution are null and void.
(g) Contrary to Paragraph 14, Exhibit C only shows the Appointment of Rev. B.D. Agbaosi as a superior evangelist in Porto-Novo, Benin Republic and NOT as the Pastor and Spiritual head of the Celestial Church of Christ worldwide as deposed to by the Applicant.
10
(h) Consequently any appointment made by Rev. B.D. Agbaosi as the Pastor and Spiritual Head of the Celestial Church of Christ worldwide is invalid, null and void.
(i) The Appointment of Rev. B.A. Adeogun by Rev. B.D. Agbaosi is invalid, null and void and is not recognized by the 1st Respondent or the 3rd Respondent, the Worldwide Head of the Celestial Church of Christ.
(j) The Judgment of Honorable Justice A.O. Asenuga of Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th March, 2015 does not therefore affect the Applicant, Rev. B.D. Agbaosi and/or Rev. B.A. Adeogun in the least.
(k) There was therefore no need for Rev. B.A. Adeogun to be made a party to the claim or counter-claim at the Trial Court.
(l) The Applicant has not shown sufficient interest to be granted leave to appeal.
(m) The Applicant has no legal capacity to Appeal and he is a busybody and a meddlesome interloper seeking to create further mischief for the Celestial Church of Christ.
(n) It will be against the interest of Justice if the Applicant’s application is granted.”
The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also filed a Counter Affidavit of 21
11
paragraphs on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, pertinent paragraphs of which are 2 to 20. It is set out as follows:
“2. That I know as a fact that Judgment was delivered in Suit No HCL/07/2006, between The Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (Nigeria Diocese) Vs. Mr. Godwin Bolanle Shonekan and another on the 26th day of March, 2015 by Honorable Justice A.O. ASENUGA sitting at Ogun State High Court Ilaro, Ogun State.
3. That the 2nd Respondent denies Paragraphs 1-30 of the aforesaid Applicant affidavit and the attached Exhibits as misrepresentation of facts in this Appeal.
4. That the said Judgment of the High Court of Ogun State in Suit No: HCL/07/2006, dated the 26th day of March 2015, delivered by Honorable Justice A.O. ASENUGA, does not in any way apply to or affect the Applicant herein in any way whatsoever.
5. That the blunt truth is that since 1947, when Celestial Church of Christ was descended/founded, MAKOKO VILLAGE, YABA, LAGOS STATE has been the Worldwide Headquarters and has never being under the control of any self-acclaimed Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ sitting at Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin. Then 1958
12
certificate of Registration is hereby attached and marked Exhibit GBS1.
6. That the so called Rev. B.D. AGBAOSI has never being a Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide and he was at best known as a Superior Evangelist until his demise.
7. That the said Rev. B.D. AGBAOSI was not capable of appointing Rev. B.A. ADEOGUN as his successor contrary to the Applicant’s affidavit without reference to the 1980 Constitution which the Judgment in Suit No: HCL/07/2006 referred to as the Extant Constitution until properly and duly amended.
8. That the Suit No: HCL/07/2006 was pending at the High Court of Ogun State for close to Ten (10) years (2006 – 2015) to the knowledge of an average members of Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide, especially the Party Interested/Applicant and his principal, but they refused to join the suit at the High Court.
9. That as a matter of fact, the Applicant herein and his principal has never been members of Board of Trustees since it was founded in 1947. The list of names and pictures of the Board of Trustees is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit GBS2.
10. That it naturally flows from paragraph
13
9 above that the Applicant has no LOCUS Standi to ask for the relief sought as they are not exceptional or special members of the Celestial Church of Christ.
11. That it is not true that the Applicant herein is a SUPREME EVANGELIST as he could not be so without the anointment of the 3rd Respondent who act as the Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide (though the issue is subject of Appeal No: CA/IB/227/2016) pending before the Court of Appeal.
12. That the Applicant herein has not shown sufficient interest in his affidavit to warrant him or his principal to be joined as parties at the Lower Court or be entitled to the relief now subject.
13. That Contrary to the Deposition of the Paragraph 20 of the Appellant’s affidavit, it is a blatant lie to say that the so called Pastor B.A. ADEOGUN who called himself a Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ was not aware of Suit no; HCL/07/2006 until 16th of November, 2015 when in fact the said suit is known to a newcomer in the celestial church of Christ family.
14. That all the Exhibits attached in support of the Applicant’s affidavit does not support the deposition and the reliefs
14
sought by him on the face of the motion paper.
15. That the gist of the said Suit No: HCL/07/2006 is that the 1st Respondent herein instituted the suit against the 2nd respondent herein seeking the order of the Court to restrain the 2nd Respondent herein from parading himself as a Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide.
16. That the 2nd respondent was a Counter-Claimant in suit No: HCL/07/2006, and he subsequently urged the Honorable Court to join the 3rd respondent herein and he was so joined by the order of the Honorable Lower Court.
17. That the Judgment delivered in Suit No; HCL/07/2006 affected the 1st and 3rd Respondents herein only as the 2nd respondent was indeed excluded due to the fact that he was not proclaimed under the CCC Nigeria diocese constitution but the CCC Diocese of the Americas Constitution that was duly registered in the state of Florida, United States of America by five of the seven Registered Board of Trustee of the 1980 Constitution that was the subject of the Judgment in Suit No: HCL/07/2006 and referred to as the Extant Constitution.
18. That it was not necessary to join the Applicant herein or his
15
principal at the Lower Court because they were not in any way contesting the position/office of the Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ.
19. That if the interested Party/Applicant herein feel aggrieved, he could as well join the Appeal No: HCL/07/2006 which is pending before the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, Oyo State which is an Appeal against the Judgment in suit No: HCL/07/2006.
20. That the action of the Applicant is meddlesome and an attempt to further heat the religious polity in the Celestial Church of Christ worldwide.”
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent also filed a Counter Affidavit of 5 paragraphs on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. Pertinent paragraphs of which are 4(a)-(J). It is set out as follows:
“4 The 3rd Respondent states the following in response:
a. The Judgment of the Honorable Trial Court delivered on the 26th March, 2015 by Honorable Justice A.O. Asenuga of Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, does not apply to or affect the Applicant in any way.
b. The correct facts are that the 3rd Respondent was appointed the Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ by the Proclamation of the Pastor-In-Chief council
16
pursuant to the meeting held on the 28th and 29th September, 2002. (The said proclamation is attached as Exhibit A).
c. Further to the above, an amendment was done to the 1980 Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ to avert a vacuum and in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court in Josiah Kayode Owodunni Vs. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ Nigeria Diocese & Ors sequel to which Section III of the 1980 Constitution of Celestial Church of Christ was amended in December 2000. (The amendment approved and registered by the Corporate Affairs commission is attached as Exhibit B.)
d. The person that the Person Interested/Applicant is representing herein was never appointed the Pastor of Celestial Church of Christ and neither was he ever a member of Board of Trustees.(The Letter of Corporate Affairs Commission dated 31st May, 2011 confirming the appointment of the 3rd respondent as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Celestial Church of Christ is attached as Exhibit C.)
e. The only members of Board of Trustees after the demise of the Late Samuel Olatunji Ajanlekoko, Alexander Abiodun Bada and Alfred
17
Folabi Babatunde Owoaje respectively who were the first ever set of Trustees were appointed on the 24th of November, 1958 till the sole appointment of the 3rd Respondent on 6th January, 2011 before the current and incumbent members of Board of Trustees who were appointed on the 23rd September, 2011. (The Certified True Copies of the Certificates of Incorporation of 20th November 1958, 6th January, 2011 and 23rd September 2011 of the Celestial Church of Christ are attached as exhibits D, E, & F respectively).
f. There was never in existence any Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ, Porto-Novo, Republic of Benin.
g. The Celestial Church of Christ Nigeria Diocese Makoko Village, Yaba has always been the Worldwide Headquarters of the Celestial Church of Christ.
h. Contrary to Paragraph 14, Exhibit C only shows the Appointment of Rev. B.D. Agbaosi as a Superior Evangelist in Porto-Novo, Benin Republic and Not as the Pastor and Spiritual head of the Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide as deposed by the Applicant
i. It is not true that either Rev. B.A. Adeogun or Rev. B.D. Agbaosi was ever appointed or selected as Pastor of the Worldwide
18
Head of the Celestial Church of Christ.
j. Appeal No. CA/IB/227/2016 is pending before this Honorable Trial Court delivered on the 26th March, 2015 by Honorable Justice A.O. Asenuga of Ogun State High Court, Ilaro and as such any other appeal on the same Judgment will only cause undue delay and confusion.
Written addresses were ordered in this application.
At the hearing, learned Counsel for the Interested Party/ Applicant referred to the application filed on 17/11/2015, the written address filed on behalf of the Interested Party/Applicant filed on 14/10/2019 which was deemed properly filed and served on 27/2/2020. He also referred to the reply on point of law filed against the written addresses of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The said reply on point of law was filed on 31/1/2020 but it was deemed as properly filed and served on 27/2/2020.
The learned Counsel for the Interested Party/Applicant adopted the said written address filed in support of the application along with the reply of point on law filed against the written addresses of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents as his argument in urging that the application be granted.
19
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also referred to the Counter Affidavit filed on 20/9/2019 and the written address filed against the application on 15/1/2020 (which was deemed as properly filed and served on 27/2/2020).
He adopted and relied on the said Counter Affidavit and written address filed against the application as his argument in opposition to the application and he urged that the application be refused.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also referred to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 7/10/2019 and the written address filed on 7/10/2019 which was deemed as properly filed and served on 27/2/2020.
He also adopted and relied on both the said Counter Affidavit as well as the written address filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent as his argument in urging that the application be refused.
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent also referred to the Counter Affidavit filed on 20/9/2019 and the written address filed on 15/1/2020 which was deemed as properly filed and served on 27/2/2020.
He adopted and relied on the said Counter Affidavit and written address as his argument in
20
urging that application be refused.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether or not considering the facts and circumstances of the matter the Applicant is entitled to the orders being sought in this application.
(2) Whether or not the Applicant has placed before the Honourable Court enough facts to enable the Honourable Court grant this application.”
The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent also formulated two issues for the determination of the application. The said issues are set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the party Interested/Applicant has the requisite locus standi to make this application.
(2) Whether or not the application of the party Interested/Applicant is competent in law to entitle him to the reliefs sought”.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in his own case formulated lone issue for the determination of this application. The issue is set out as follows:-
“Whether looking at the circumstances of this case, the party
21
Interested/Applicant herein has the requisite locus standi to bring the instant motion on notice to seek the relief sought.”
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent also formulated two issues for the determination of this application. The said issues are set out as follows:-
“(1) Whether or not having regard to the facts and materials before this Honourable Court the party Interested/Applicant has the requisite Locus Standi to make this application.
(2) Whether or not the instant motion on Notice for leave to appeal as an interested party is competent in law to entitle the party Interested/Applicant to the reliefs sought.”
I have carefully gone through the issues formulated for the determination of this application by Counsel for the parties. The issues are more or less one and the same, but I am of the view that the issues formulated on behalf of the applicant for the determination of the application are apt in the determination of this application. I will therefore rely on the said issues formulated on behalf of the Applicant.
ISSUES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION
ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2 (TAKEN TOGETHER)
“(1) Whether or not considering the facts and circumstance
22
of this matter the Applicant is entitled to the orders being sought in this application.
(2) Whether or not the Applicant has placed before the Honourable Court enough facts to enable the Honourable Court to grant his application.”
The learned Counsel for the Applicant referred to Section 243 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. He also referred to the following cases:
– DURU VS FRN (2013) 2 NSCQR PAGE 397 AT 414.
– CONTRACT RESOURCE NIG. LTD VS UBA PLC (2011) ALL FWLR PART 596 PAGE 43.
– CPC VS NYAKO (2011) 47 NSCQR PAGE 53 AT 67.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant referred to the affidavit in support of the application and the grounds for the application which he argued showed that the Judgment Exhibit D attached to the application adversely affected the position and title of the Applicant as Pastor/Head of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide.
He argued that the decision of the lower Court failed to reckon with the Applicant as the incumbent pastor of the Church and the occupant of the seat of pastor of
23
the Church at the Supreme headquarters of the Church, Port Novo, Republic of Benin, as designated in Section 6 of the 1980 Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ Nigeria Diocese a copy, of which is attached to the application as Exhibit “B”.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant referred to Section 5, 108 and 109 of the 1980 Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ Nigeria diocese.
He referred to the case of – OGEMBE VS USMAN (2011) 48 NSCQR PAGE 190 AT 213.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is entitled to the orders being sought, and he urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Applicant.
On the issue whether or not the applicant has placed before the Court enough facts to enable the Court to grant the application.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that before a Court arrives at the decision to grant or not to grant prayers sought in a motion, the Court must be guided by the affidavit evidence before the Court. He relied on the following cases:-
– OJAGBAMILA VS LEJUWA (2005) ALL FWLR PART 244 PAGE 949 AT 959 paragraphs A-B.
– NLC VS PACIFIC BANK
24
(2012) 50 NSCQR PAGE 402 AT 422.
– NWORA VS NWABUEZE (2011) 46 NSCQR PAGE 409 AT 436-437.
The learned Counsel for the party Interested/Applicant referred to the affidavit in support of this application with its grounds and the exhibits attached.
He referred to Order 6 Rules 7 (a), (b), (c) & (d) and Order 9 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.
He argued that to succeed in an application for extension of time to appeal, the application must show:-
(a) Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
(b) And grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
He submitted that the Applicant has shown in his affidavit in support of the application good and substantial reasons for his failure to appeal within the prescribed period and good grounds of appeal.
He referred to the following cases:-
– OGEMBE VS USMAN (Supra)
– MOZIE VS MBAMALU (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 425.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant stated that the Celestial Church of Christ is one and indivisible entity with only one Pastor who is the head of the Church worldwide and has the
25
Headquarters of the Church at Port Novo Republic of Benin.
It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents failed to address the issue before the Court. It was also argued that the applicant only need to show that the grounds of appeal disclosed prima facie arguable grounds and that the law does not impose duty to show that the appeal will succeed before the Court can grant the application.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the applicant has placed enough and sufficient facts before the Court to enable the Court resolve this issue in favour of the applicant. He urged that the application be granted as prayed.
The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Party Interested/Applicant does not have the locus standi to make the present application.
He relied on the following cases:-
– ADESANYA VS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (1981) 2 NCLR PAGE 358.
– BARBUS & CO. NIG LTD VS OKAFOR-UDEJI (2018) 11 NWLR PART 1630 PAGE 298
– A.G LAGOS STATE VS EKO HOTELS LTD (2006) 18 NWLR PART 1011 PAGES 450-451 Paragraphs F-D
26
It was submitted on behalf of the 1st Respondent that Party Interested/Applicant and Reverend B. A. Adeogun both lack the requisite locus standi to bring the application.
The case of – CHUKWU VS INEC (2014) 10 NWLR PART 1415 AT PAGE 385 Particularly at 414-415 Paragraphs H-C was referred to.
It was also submitted on behalf of the 1st Respondent that the applicant has failed to discharge or establish the capacity in which he sued.
He relied on the case of:- EMECHEFA VS OGUERI (1999) 8 NWLR PART 516 PAGE 323 AT 337.
Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent urged that the application be refused.
On the issue whether or not the application of the Party Interested/Applicant is competent in law to entitle him to the relief sought.
It was submitted that the application before this Court is incompetent and as such the party Interested/Applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent relied on the case of:- ODEDO VS OGUEBEGO (2015) 13 NWLR PART 1476 PAGE 229 AT 267-268 Paragraphs H-C.
It was contended that the application showed that only trinity prayers and deeming order was sought but that no
27
order for leave to be made a party to the appeal.
The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the omission to apply for leave to appeal as an interested party is fatal to this application. He relied on the case of:- CHUKWU VS INEC (Supra) at page 408-409 Paragraphs A-B.
He urged that this application be struck out.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that the party Interested/Applicant is an ordinary member of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide under the control of the 1st Respondent. He went further that the principal of Party Interested/Applicant is also an ordinary member of Celestial Church of Christ like millions of members of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide.
It was finally submitted on behalf of the 2nd Respondent that the Applicant h
It was contended on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that the
28
applicant failed to observe the proper procedure when bringing an action in a representative capacity. He argued that the parties should have read “Reverend B. A. Adeogun suing through Supreme Evangelist Dr. Maromipin Adeniyi”.
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted that the default committed by the Applicant is a fundamental error. He relied on the following cases:
– SOFOLAHAN VS FOWLER (2002) 14 NWLR PART 788 PAGE 664 AT 684-685 PARAGRAPHS G-A.
– A. G. LAGOS STATE VS EKO HOTELS LTD (2006) 18 NWLR PART 1011 PAGE 450 – 451 PARAGRAPHS F-D.
It was also contended on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that the party Interested/Applicant has not shown that his appointment as pastor in Port Novo can override the appointment of a pastor in Nigeria. He relied on the case of: CHUKWU VS INEC (Supra). He urged that this application be refused.
The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent on whether or not the application for leave to appeal as an interested party is competent in law to entitle the party interested to the reliefs sought, submitted that this application is incompetent for failure to satisfy condition precedent. It was also
29
stated that the application is statute barred as it is caught by the doctrine of Estoppel. He relied on the case of – RE- APEH (2017) 11 NWLR PART 1576 PAGE 252 AT 302-303 PARAGRAPHS H-B.
It was submitted on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that a party interested in an appeal who was not originally a party to the decision complained of must first seek leave to appeal as an interested party since he is not in the category of person who requires no leave ab initio in order to participate in the proceedings.
It was also submitted that the Appellant was expected to apply for leave to appeal as an interested person which failure cannot be waived. He relied on the following cases of:-
– ODEDO VS OGUEBEGO (2015) 13 NWLR PART 1476 PAGE 229 AT 267-268 PARAGRAPHS H-C
– CHUKWU VS INEC (supra)
It was submitted further on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that the Applicant has not fulfilled the condition precedent to the grant of his application, and that the applicant’s motion is incompetent.
The learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contended that the grounds of appeal of the Appellant centres around the issue of amendment of the 1980
30
Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ and any appointment made thereto which is a matter laid to rest by the Supreme Court in the case of:-
– OWODUNNI VS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH CHRIST (2000) 10 NWLR PART 675 PAGE 315.
It was submitted on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that the issue of the lacuna in the 1980 Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ and the fact that the Reverend Pastor Bilehou Oshofa did not appoint anyone before he died were put to finality in year 2000 (i.e. Twenty years ago) by the Supreme Court, and that the matter is therefore caught up with the doctrine of issue Estoppel.
It was submitted further that an issue already decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be re-litigated again by the same parties. He relied on the case of:-
– UNITY BANK PLC VS OLATUNJI (2013) 15 NWLR PART 1378 PAGE 503 AT 551 PARAGRAPHS B-E.
It was finally submitted that the application is in bad taste and it should be refused.
In his reply on point of law, learned Counsel for the Party Interested/Applicant referred to the case of:BASINCO LTD AND WOERMANN LINE (2009) 39 NSCQR PAGE 284 AT 313. On the
31
general principles on the meaning of the word “Locus Standi” and the conditions that determine the “Locus Standi” of a person to bring an action or application, he referred to the case of: AJAYI VS ADEBIYI (2012) 50 NSCQR PAGE 492 AT 520-521.
It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that by the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant has shown that his civil right or interest has been adversely affected by the pronouncement of the lower Court in the Judgment which is the subject matter of this application.
The learned Counsel for the applicant referred to Section 243 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which he stated confers the right of appeal with leave of the High Court or Court of Appeal on an interested person.
He referred to the case of CPC VS NYAKO (2011) 47 NSCQR PAGE 53 AT 84.
He argued further that the applicant has shown by his affidavit evidence in support of the application and the grounds of the application and the Exhibits attached that he is an interested person who has suffered legal depravity.
It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that32
the judgment in contention and the pronouncement thereon did not only affect the right of the applicant as the pastor and Spiritual head of Celestial church of Christ worldwide, but also affected the Nigeria diocese Constitution of the Celestial Church of Christ.
He referred to the following cases: OGEMBE VS USMAN (Supra).
– MOZIE VS MBA MALU (Supra).
– OJAGBAMILA VS LEJUWA (Supra).
He urged that these issues be resolved in favour of Party Interested/Applicant
RESOLUTION
The reliefs sought by the Applicant in this application was set out earlier in this Ruling.
A careful reading of the application would reveal that the Applicant sought for the trinity prayers and a deeming order. The Applicant did not ask for leave to be made a party to the appeal as a person having interest.
I am of the view that the omission to ask for the prayer for leave to appeal as an interested person is fatal to the application.
In CHUKWU VS INEC (2014) 10 NWLR PART 1415 PAGE 385 AT 408-409 Paragraphs A-B. It was held among others that:-
“The first prayer a person seeking leave to appeal as an interested party must seek is for
33
leave to be made a party in the case pursuant to Section 243 (a) of the 1999 Constitution. It is not just the trinity prayers that the applicant should seek. His first prayer should be leave to be made a party as a person having an interest in the case.
The other three prayers viz: enlargement of time to seek leave to appeal; leave to appeal and extension of time within which to appeal, will follow if the application is made outside the time prescribed for appealing under Section 24 (2) of the Court of Appeal Act. The last three prayers are wholly dependent on the first prayers as the other prayers cannot succeed unless the appellant is first made a party in the case…”
In this application, the Applicant failed to ask for the first prayer, i.e to seek leave to be made a party in the case.
Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that the applicant has not fulfilled the condition precedent for the grant of the application. The party interested/Applicant’s application filed on 17/11/2015 is incompetent and it is hereby struck out.
See the following cases:-
– FUNDUK ENGNEERING LTD VS JAMES MCARTHUR & OTHERS
34
(1996) LPELR – 1291 (SC).
– ASSAMS & OTHERS VS ARARUME & OTHERS (2015) 12 SC PART 1 PAGE 43, (2016) 1 NWLR PART 1493 PAGE 368.
Since this Court is the intermediate Court and not the final Court, I have to consider the other issue in the determination of the application.
The learned Counsel for the Interested Party/Applicant submitted that before a Court arrives at a decision to grant or refuse prayers sought in a motion that the Court must be guided by the affidavit evidence before the Court. He relied on the case of: OJAGBAMILA VS LEJUWA (Supra).
But the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Party Interested/Applicant lacked locus standi to bring the application.
In order to succeed in an application for extension of time to appeal, an applicant must show:-
(a) Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period.
(b) And grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
It has been contended on behalf of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents that the Party Interested/Applicant lacks the Locus Standi to make this
35
application.
The term Locus Standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. It is a Constitutional requirement to enable a person to maintain an action and it is limited to the prosecution of matters relating to the civil rights and obligation of the Plaintiff.
A person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See the following cases:-
– ADESANYA VS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOTHER (Supra).
– BARBUS & CO. NIG. LTD VS OKAFOR – UDEJI (Supra).
In order to have Locus Standi to sue, the Plaintiff must show sufficient interest in the suit before the Court. The criterion for sufficient interest is whether the person seeking redress or remedy will suffer some injury or hardship arising from the litigation.
In this application, the Applicant Dr. Maromipin Adeniyi brought the application for Reverend B. A. Adeogun who he stated is the Pastor and Head of Celestial Church of Christ worldwide, Supreme Headquarters, Port Novo Republic of Benin.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
36
The Applicant has not shown in his affidavit in support of the application that Reverend B. A. Adeogun was ever appointed as a pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ after the demise of Reverend Pastor Bilehou Oshoffa or that he has any legally recognized interest in the Pastorship of and leadership of Celestial Church of Christ.
There is the affidavit evidence that Rev. B. D Agaosi who appointed Reverend B. A. Adeogun as his successor before his demise was not appointed a Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ by Late Reverend Pastor Bilehou Oshoffa and neither is he a member of the board of trustees of the Church.
The Applicant sought to establish his Locus with Exhibit “C” attached to the affidavit in support of the application but the said Exhibit “C” merely shows the appointment of Rev. B. D. Agbasoi as a Superior Evangelist in Port Novo Benin Republic and NOT as the Pastor and spiritual head of the Celestial Church of Christ worldwide as stated in the affidavit of the applicant.
In the case of – CHUKWU VS INEC (Supra) page 414-415 paragraphs H-C the Supreme Court held further among others-
37
“It is my firm view, flowing from the community reading of Section 243 (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the plethora of the case law authorities on this point that only a person whose interest had been directly and not obliquely affected by a decision can validly seek leave to appeal as an interested party. This would not cover a person who has a general interest in the decision to appeal against same. See – BALA VS DIKKO (2013) 4 NWLR PART 1343 PAGE 52 AT 63-64.
In the appeal at hand, we take the interest or right being relied upon by the 4th Respondent as one which he shares with other aspirants from other political parties. In that wise, the 4th Respondent needs to show more facts which made him more affected by the outcome of the case. The Court of Appeal in OMOTESHO VS ABDULAHI (2008) 2 NWLR PART 1072 PAGE 526 AT 543, has also decided that in a matter of application for leave to appeal by an interested party, his interest must be clear from the record of proceedings and not from the affidavit he filed in support of his application as per Salami JCA. The Supreme Court did not overrule same”.
38
In this application under consideration, there is no record of proceeding of the lower Court attached to the Party Interested’s application which may guide this Court in ascertaining the nature of his interest.
Furthermore it is clear from the facts contained in the affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents that the Party Interested/Applicant is an ordinary member of the Celestial Church of Christ. Also the applicant and the person he is representing are not members of the Trustees of the Celestial Church worldwide.
I am therefore of the view that that applicant has not shown that he has sufficient or special interest to enable this Court grant this application. Therefore this application is hereby refused.
In the circumstance, issue numbers 1 and 2 are hereby resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant.
In the result, in view of my finding earlier in this Ruling that this application brought by the Party Interested/Applicant is incompetent, the words of Lord Denning in MACFOY VS U.A.C LTD (1962) A. C. PAGE 152, a privy council case which went
39
on appeal from West African Court of Appeal readily come to mind. There the Learned law Lord delivering the judgment of the Board in which Lord Delvin and Rt. Hon. L.M.D. De Silva were also present said-
“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity, it is not only bad but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the Court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without much ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the Court declare it to be so. And every proceedings which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”
Consequent upon the foregoing, this application by the Party Interested/Applicant filed on 17/11/2015 is hereby struck out.
There shall be no order as to costs, each of the parties are to bear their costs.
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now, the Ruling delivered by my learned brother Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA. I agree absolutety with the reasoning and conclusion that the application be refused.
It is obvious from the paragraphs 2 — 28 of the affidavit in support
40
of the application that the Applicant has not brought this application in his own right. Particularly, paragraphs 2 and 19 of the Affidavit in support state that:
2. I bring this application for and on behalf of the Reverend Pastor of the Church Worldwide, Supreme Headquarters, Porto Novo, Republic of Benin.
19. Reverend Pastor B. A. Adeogun is dissatisfied with the judgment in Suit Number HCL/07/06 and decided to Appeal against the judgment as an interested party.
The Applicant herein does not have any direct legal interest in the matter. Rather it is Rev. Pastor B. A. Adeogun whom the Applicant deposed was not aware of Suit No: HCL/07/06 as he was not made a party. See paragraph 18 of the Affidavit in Support. The bottom line therefore, is that the Applicant has not disclosed any legal interest and therefore has no locus standi to make this application before this Court.
I therefore agree with my learned brother that this Application is incompetent. It is accordingly struck out.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft, the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA.
<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
41
The Applicant who was not a party to the proceedings conducted before the lower Court in Suit No. HCL/07/2006 has brought the instant application before us wherein he seeks the following reliefs:
1) An Order granting extension of time within which the party Interested/Applicant will seek leave to appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice A.O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Haro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit No- HC/07/2006.
2) An Order granting leave to the party Interested/Applicant to appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice A.O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit No- HCL/07/2006.
3) An Order granting extension of time within which party Interested/Applicant will appeal against the judgment of Honourable Justice A.O. Asenuga of the Ogun State High Court, Ilaro, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2015 in Suit Number HCL/07/2006.
4) An Order deeming the Notice and Grounds of Appeal already filed and served as having been duly and properly filed and served.
He has however failed to seek and obtain leave to appeal as an interested party
42
as required under Section 243(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. By the said provision any person who was not a party to a proceedings may only appeal upon being granted leave to so do as an interested party. See WILLIAMS Vs MOKWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945)249; POROYE & ORS Vs. MAKARFI & ORS. (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1599)91, OTU Vs. A.C.B. INT’L BANK PLC & ANOR (2008) 3 NWLR (PT.1073)179.
Having failed to seek leave to appeal as an interested party this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to grant the prayers contained in the Motion under consideration.
A grant of same would be an exercise in futility as its foundation is faulty. The law is settled that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It would collapse.
It is for the above and the fuller reasons given in the lead Judgment that I also dismiss this application.
43
Appearances:
- G. A. BABALOLA for the party Interested/Applicant with him, ADEYERI OLUWADAMILOLA Esq. and ALARO OLANREWAJU Esq. For Appellant(s)
MISS M. O. ODUGUWA for the 1st Respondent.
MR. B. J. AKOMOLAFE for the 3rd Respondent.
No legal representation for the 2nd Respondent on 27/2/2020. For Respondent(s)
