HOUSE OWNERS/RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF SHELL HOUSING ESTATE & ORS v. MRS. RUTH EZE UDENSI
(2019)LCN/13179(CA)
In The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
On Friday, the third day of Could, 2019
CA/L/503/2018
RATIO
JURISDICTION: THE CLAIM OF THE CLAIMANT OR APPLICANT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
I keep in mind that in legislation it’s the declare of a Claimant or an Applicant because the case perhaps, that denotes the jurisdiction of the Court docket and due to this fact, at any time when the problem of whether or not or not a declare is inside the jurisdiction of a Court docket is raised, it’s the declare of the Claimant or Applicant because the case could also be as endorsed on the originating processes that have to be checked out and critically scrutinized to see whether or not or not it falls inside the jurisdictional restrict of the powers of the Court docket earlier than which it was commenced. In so doing, the defence of the Defendant or Respondent because the case could also be, irrespective of how sturdy, is admittedly of no second and thus goes to no difficulty within the dedication of the jurisdiction of the Court docket to entertain the declare of the Claimant or Applicant whether it is discovered to be inside the ambit of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court docket by legislation. See Tukur V. Authorities of Gongola State (1989) Four NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Orthopaedic Hospital Administration Board V. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) 538 @ p. 563.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
COURT: WHEN WILL A COURT BE SAID TO BE COMPETENT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A CAUSE OR MATTER
Now, in legislation when a Court docket can be stated to be competent to listen to and decide a trigger or matter is now not a problem for argument because it has been nicely settled. Thus, for a Court docket to be competent the next circumstances have to be fulfilled, specifically: a) it’s correctly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one motive or one other; b) the subject material of the case is inside its jurisdiction and there’s no characteristic within the case which prevents the Court docket from exercising its jurisdiction; and c) the case comes earlier than the Court docket initiated by due strategy of legislation, and upon achievement of any situation precedent to the train of jurisdiction. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. See additionally Benin Rubber Producers Ltd V. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 521) 388 @ p. 403; Sunday Eguamwense v. James Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) 1 @ p. 25; Gbadamosi Lahan v. AG of Western Area (1963) 1 All NLR 226.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE
Thus, the problem of jurisdiction may be very basic to adjudication as a result of it goes to the inspiration and competence of any trigger or matter or motion earlier than the Court docket. It’s certainly the epicenter of your entire litigation course of and thus with out it there might be no validity in any proceedings or resultant judgment of the Court docket. It’s thus the legislation that when a problem of jurisdiction is raised it have to be decided first come what may by the Court docket as a result of jurisdiction is radical and sine qua non to adjudication of any matter or motion or trigger in a Court docket of legislation. Thus, with out jurisdiction there might be no competence within the Court docket. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 341. See additionally Elugbe V. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319 @ p. 334; Ansa V. RTPCN (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 421 @ p. 448; Gaji V. Paye (2003) Eight NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 @ pp. 599 – 600; Fashogbon V. Adeogun (No. 1) (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 396) 644 @ p. 658; Tukur V. Gongola State Authorities (No. 2) (1989) Four NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Western Metal Works Ltd. V. Iron & Metal Employees Union (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284; Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31; Omaghoni V. Nigeria Airways Ltd. (2006) 16 NWLR (pt. 1101) 310; Fairness Financial institution of Nigeria Ltd. V. Halilco Nig Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 980) 568; NDIC V. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT RULES: MATTERS THAT COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN NIGERIA
It’s settled legislation that the place the principal declare will not be for the enforcement of any of the elemental rights as enshrined below Chapter IV of the Structure of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), then such a declare can’t be proceeded with below the Basic Rights Enforcement Guidelines.Tukur V. Govt of Taraba State (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 510) 549 @ pp. 576 – 577. See additionally Emeka V. Okoroafor & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41738 (SC); Nwokoleme V. Ajaero & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40073 (CA); Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur V. Authorities of Gongola State (1989) Four NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Mrs. Consolation Alagba Kolo V. Nigeria Police Drive & Ors (2018) LPELR 43635 (CA); Dr. Okoroma & Anor V. Chief Christian Uba & Ors (1998) LPELR 6405 (CA).PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: WHAT QUALIFIES A MATTER TO COME UNDER THE FUNDAMANETAL RIGHTS RULES
In Nwokoleme V. Ajaero & Ors (2016) LPELR-40073 (CA), this Court docket had put it succinctly and concisely inter alia thus:
In fact, it’s clear that in basic rights enforcement matter, the grievance should centre on basic rights breach (es) as per Chapter Four of the 1999 Structure, such that the primary grievance or grievance is the breach of basic rights and the breach will not be introduced as ancillary declare(s)…PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
COURTS: THE ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS TOWARDS ACADEMIC OR HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES
In Charles Oke & Anor V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the total Court docket of the Supreme Court docket per Muhammad JSC., had this to say on this difficulty:
It’s a precept of legislation lengthy settled that the final perspective of the Courts of legislation is that they’re detest in making pronouncements on educational/hypothetical points because it doesn’t serve any helpful goal.
See additionally Oke V. Mimiko (No. 1) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 225 @ pp. 254 ? 255; Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo Rivers Basin Growth Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 @ p 1497.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: THE BREACH OF FAIR HEARING CAN AFFECT JURISDICTION
The fulcrum of difficulty, his difficulty one by the realized counsel for the Appellants, although for my part seems to be solely however peripheral on this enchantment, is the vexed difficulty of when in legislation can the proceedings and or judgment of a Court docket be stated to be in breach of the precise to honest listening to as constitutionally assured to the residents of this Nation within the dedication of their civil rights and obligations? In legislation, so grave is that this difficulty that the impact of such a breach is that it invariably renders such a judgment a nullity. See Ekpenetu V. Ofegobi (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 276; Amadi V. INEC (2013) Four NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595; Ovunwo & Anor. V. Woko & Ors (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522; Pan African Incorporation & Ors. V. Shoreline Lifeboat Ltd & Anor (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 524) 56; Motion Congress of Nigeria V. Sule Lamido & Ors (2012) Eight NWLR (Pt. 1303) 560 @ p. 593; Judicial Service Fee of Cross River State & Anor V. Dr (Mrs) Asari Younger (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 1; Newswatch Communications Restricted V. Alhaji Ibrahim Attah (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144; Otapo V. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587; Wilson V. AG of Bendel State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 572. See additionally A. U. Amadi V. Thomas Aplin & Co Ltd (1972) All NLR 413; Mohammed Oladapo Ojengbede V. M.O. Esan & Anor (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 771.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
COURTS: COURTS MUST CONSIDER AND PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES BROUGHT BEFORE IT
My lords, it’s now settled legislation {that a} Court docket should take into account and pronounce on all points arising and correctly submitted earlier than it for dedication by the contending events. Typically or ought to I say often points for dedication are formulated by the events and or the Court docket. Thus a Court docket is at liberty, and possesses the jurisdiction, to change or reject all or any of the problems formulated by the events, and body its personal points or reframe the problems formulated by the events, if in its view, such points is not going to result in a correct dedication of the case. It’s thus now not doubtful {that a} Court docket is enjoined to pronounce, as a common rule, on all points correctly arising and positioned earlier than it for dedication with a view to arrive on the justice of the case and to afford the events their proper to have their points submitted to the Court docket to be pretty thought of and decided based on legislation. Nonetheless, to each common rule there are exceptions and thus the place the problem is subsumed in one other difficulty or is discovered to be irrelevant or inapt or merely obfuscating the true points for dedication, it shall not be vital for the Court docket to make separate pronouncement on both of such subsumed points or on irrelevant and inapt points. See Sha (Jnr) V. Kwan (2000) Eight NWLR (Pt. 670) 685 @ pp. 691 692. See additionally Ogba V. Onwuzo (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 331; Spring Financial institution Plc V. Dokkin Ventures Nigeria Restricted (2012) LPELR ? 7983(CA); Uzuada & Ors V. Ebigah (2009) 8 – 9 NMLR 409 @ p. 422; Akpan V. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 218) 431; Brawal Transport Ltd. V. Onwadike (2000) 6 SCNJ 508 @ p. 522; Orji V. PDP (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1161) 310 @ p. 408; Karibo V. Grend (1992) Three NWLR (Pt.230) 426 @ p. 441; Osasona V Ajayi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 527 @ p. 549; Okonkwo V. Udoh (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 16 @ p. 20.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
COURT: THE EFFECT OF A COURT NOT CONSIDERING ALL ISSUES BROUGHT BEFORE IT
It’s thus now firmly settled in legislation {that a} deliberate failure by a Court docket to contemplate all pertinent and related points arising from and submitted by a celebration would readily and justifiably be characterised as amounting to a failure to carry out its statutory responsibility and a breach of the precise to honest listening to of the celebration. See AG Federation V. Nse (2016) LPELR- 40518 (CA). See additionally Adebayo V. AG of Ogun State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 201; Dawodu V. Nationwide Inhabitants Fee (2000) 6 WRN 116 @ p. 118; Oyediran V. Amoo (1970) 1 ANLR 313 @ p. 317; Ojogbue V. Nnnubia (1972) 6 SC 227; Atanda V. Ajani (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511 @ p. 539; Okonji V. Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 @ pp. 150 ? 152; Katto V. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126 @ p. 49; Ovunwo V. Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522 @ pp. 546 – 547.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
COURTS: TRIAL COURTS CAN FOLLOW ITS OWN METHODS OF CONSIDERING AND WEIGHING THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE IT
See Eyo V. Inyang (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 715) 1, the place it was reiterated inter alia thus:
A trial Court docket is entitled to observe its personal technique of contemplating or weighing the totality of the proof earlier than it offered the ultimate resolution arrived at by no matter technique conform with rules laid down within the case and the justice of the case.PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A.
JUSTICES
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
Between
1. HOUSE OWNERS/RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF SHELL HOUSING ESTATE
2. MR. JULIUS ODENIYI
3. MR. PETER F. YESUFU Appellant(s)
AND
MRS. RUTH EZE UDENSI Respondent(s)
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): That is an enchantment in opposition to the Closing Ruling of the Excessive Court docket of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division; Coram: M. A. Dada J., in Go well with No. LD/3575MFH12/16: Ruth Eze Udensi V. Home House owners/Residents Affiliation of Shell Housing Property & Ors., delivered on 24/10/2017, through which the Court docket beneath granted a number of the reliefs claimed by the Respondent as Applicant in opposition to the Appellants as Respondents.
The Appellants had been peeved with the stated remaining ruling and had appealed in opposition to it to this Court docket vide a Discover of Attraction filed on 18/1/2018 on f
