UGOCHUKWU AKOMAS & ORS v. THE DIVINE CHURCH OF GOD MISSION OWERRI INCORPORATED & ORS
(2019)LCN/13555(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 24th day of June, 2019
CA/OW/96/2018
RATIO
JURISDICTION: USING THE SUBJECT MATTER TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION
I cannot but say that the lower Court in my considered view, is eminently right in applying the subject matter test, in resolving the challenge to its (lower Court?s) jurisdiction to entertain the instant case. This view is reinforced by the case of ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD (2011) LPELR ? 159 (SC) wherein Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC; (as he then was) stated thus: –
The matters of jurisdiction in our Courts, is generally, approached from three dimensions: territorial, subject matter and jurisdiction on persons. On territorial jurisdiction, the Federal High Court enjoys nationwide jurisdiction whereas a State High Court is confined to the territory of the State and that of the Federal Capital Territory to the Federal Capital Territory. On subject matter jurisdiction, the High Court of a State, by the provision of Section 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, enjoys unlimited jurisdiction. The Federal High Court has limited jurisdiction or jurisdiction on some enumerated subject matters. A State High Court has jurisdiction mostly over natural persons. Federal High Court has jurisdiction over both natural and artificial persons. There are areas where both the Federal High Court and High Court of a State enjoys concurrent jurisdiction. Example of such is the enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights conferred in Chapter IV of the Constitution.PER AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: WHERE A PLAINTIFF CLAIMS FOR TRESPASS AND INJUNCTION, OWNERSHIP WILL BE AN ISSUE
Indeed, the settled position of the law is to the effect that where a plaintiff claims for trespass and injunction, (as is the case in the instant suit) title or ownership is always in issue. See the cases of EKENNIA V. NKPAKARA (1997) LPELR ? 1078 (SC) and OLANIYAN V. FATOKI (2013) LPELR ? 20936 (SC) amongst many others.PER AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. UGOCHUKWU AKOMAS
2. CHURCHILL AKOMAS
3. UKOROMI
4. DURUAKU CHIDOZIE Appellant(s)
AND
THE DIVINE CHURCH OF GOD MISSION OWERRI INCORPORATED, REPRESENTED BY:
1. PASTOR SUNNY UKAEGBU
2. APOSTLE HARMONY IHE
3. PASTOR OKWNNAKWE BENSON
4. ELDER CHRISTOPHER OGBONNA
5. LEADER UGOCHUKWU O. AGOHA
6. BROTHER OKONKWO NDUBUISI Respondent(s)
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling delivered on 17/10/2017 by the High Court of Imo State presided over by Hon. Justice K.A. Orjiako (hereinafter to be simply referred to as ?the lower Court? and ?learned trial Judge? respectively). The Respondent ? The Divine Church of God Mission Owerri Incorporated (as Plaintiff) and represented by the named parties set out as 1st ? 6th Respondents herein, instituted the instant case in the lower Court by a writ of summons which issued on 13/3/2017, against the Appellants as Defendants. The Respondents claimed in paragraph 25 of the statement of claim against the Appellants as follows: –
?a) A declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the statutory right of occupancy to the piece/parcel of land known as and called Plot P/7 Aladinma Phase II, Prefab Layout Owerri.
?b) A declaration by the Hon. Court that the purported grant of the Cathedral portion of this plot P7 land situate at Aladinma Phase II Prefab Layout Owerri by the 1st ? 3rd Defendants to the 4th
1
Defendants (sic) Ukoromi is null and void and of no effect.
c) A declaration by the Hon. Court that the Hon. Court (sic) that the purported site of the remaining plot of plot P7 land belonging to the Divine Church of God Mission Owerri situate at Aladinma Phase II Prefab Layout Owerri for the 5th Defendant CHIUDO DUAKA is null and void and of no effect.
d) N200m (Two Hundred Million Naira) being damages for trespass into the Divine Church of God?s Mission, Owerri Branch property.
e) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents or workmen from committing Acts or further Acts of trespass into the Divine Church of Gods’ Mission, Owerri Branch property in dispute.”
In reaction to the suit, the 1st ? 4th Appellants entered a conditional appearance. The process is dated 30/5/2017 was filed on 31/5/2017 (see page 39 of the record). On the same date/day, the 1st ? 4th Appellants also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection (hereafter to be simply referred to as ?Notice of P.O.?) challenging the competence of the Respondents? suit and consequently the jurisdiction of the Court to
2
entertain the same. The grounds for the objection as set out in the Notice of P.O. are as follows:
?i. The claims of the plaintiff relate to the management and protection of the property or assets of a corporate entity incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), litigation over which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
ii. The plaintiff on record has no nexus with the property it is suing over. Plaintiff lacks the requisite locus standi to institute this suit, thereby rendering same incompetent and bereaving the Hon. Court of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.?
The lower Court entertained the preliminary objection raised by the 1st ? 4th Appellants on 4/7/2017 and in its ruling delivered on 17/10/2017, the Court stated as follows: –
?In arguments, objectors (sic) counsel, CHIDI NWORKA, ESQ adopted the accompanying written address as his arguments. He submitted that the Plaintiff is a corporate body registered under Part C of the C.A.M.A. By the Constitution, once an action deals with the management of the assets and properties of a company, such
3
action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. He cited S. 251(e) of the 1999 Constitution and S. 610 of the C.A.M.A. He relied on paragraph 16 of the Statement of claim and stated that the 1st ? 3rd defendants (sic) act was pursuant to a power of attorney executed by the founder of the plaintiff and the Court cannot determine the issues in this case without delving into who had what power in the Church and whether such power was rightly executed or not. He urged the Court to strike out the action.
Plaintiffs (sic) counsel S.C. NWACHI ESQ, relied on her written address in opposition dated 9/6/17 and urged the Court to strike out the preliminary objection. On locus standi, she submitted that the non-addition of the words “REGISTERED TRUSTEES? to the Plaintiffs’ name is a mere misnomer.
In the determination of this preliminary objection, I will firstly take on the first ground bothering on the lack of the requisite jurisdiction by this Court. The contention of the objectors in this regard is that by the provisions of S. 251(c) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject
4
matter of this action which counsel asserted deals with the management of assets and properties of the plaintiff. I shall for clarity reproduce the said section of the constitution to wit:
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters.
(e) arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters or any other enactment replacing that act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act”
It is manifest from the foregoing provisions that exclusive jurisdiction shall only vest in the Federal High Court if the suit involves civil cause or matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other Act replacing the Act or regulating the operation of companies. The implication of this is that in an action involving regulation, running or management or control of companies, the Federal High Court will be vested with
5
jurisdiction. See ?
Conversely where a dispute does not involve the control or management or administration of a company and deals with the ordinary routine business of a company, a State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter. Put in another way or differently, any matter that can be decided without recourse to either the C.A.M.A. or any enactment regulating the operation of companies under the Act belongs to the State High Court. See ?
With these propositions at the lack of the mind, I shall now proceed to determine the Court to which the issue in this action would appropriately be litigated. In this determination, it is only the statement of claim filed that determines whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to hear a suit. See… I shall so have recourse to the statement of claim filed in this action. The Plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim thus;
“The Divine (sic) Church of God Mission Owerri is a registered religious organization incorporated in 1989 under the Land Perpetual Succession Act Cap 98 and has its certificate of incorporation (sic) statutory certificate of occupancy
6
No. 59 at page 59 volume 785 dated 25th October, 1999, a photocopy of it is herein exhibited”.
By the foregoing, it becomes clear that the plaintiff as pleaded is an incorporated entity under the C.A.M.A at Part C thereat. See S. 673(1) and 2 of the C.A.M.A. The next issue is whether the subject matter or issues in this case fall within the purview of the provisions of S. 251(e) of the Constitution.
I shall herein reproduce the reliefs sought. They are;
?(1) A declaration that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the statutory right of occupancy to the piece/parcel of land known as and called Plot P/7 Aladinma Phase II, Prefab Layout Owerri.
(2) A declaration by the Hon. Court that the purported grant of the cathedral portion of this plot P7 land situate at Aladinma Phase II Prefab Layout Owerri by the 1st ? 3rd defendants to the 4th defendants (sic) UKOROMI is null and void and of no effect.
(3) A declaration by the Hon. Court that the purported site of the remaining Plot P7 land belonging to the Divine Church of God Mission Owerri situate at Aladinma Phase II Prefab Layout Owerri for the 5th Defendant CHIUDO DUAKA is null and
7
void and of no effect.
(4) N200M (Two Hundred Million Naira) being damages for trespass into the Divine Church (sic) of Gods (sic) Mission, Owerri branch property.
(5) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or workmen from committing acts or further acts of trespass into the Divine Church of Gods’ (sic) Mission, Owerri Branch property in dispute.”
By the foregoing reliefs, the plaintiff is seeking declaration as its ownership of the land in dispute, damages for trespass and injunction as against the defendants.
Furthermore, paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 of the statement of claim are instructive in this determination. I shall for clarity also reproduce them.
“(16) The 1st ? 3rd defendants approached the 1st plaintiff and requested to sell part of the land of the Church in question and brandished before him a purported power of attorney in the late Primates (sic) name (as the personal property of the father). The 1st Plaintiff was surprised and shocked that their founding father and primate of the Church had changed the name of the Church to his own.
(17) The plaintiffs started making inquiries of
8
the original document of the Church which was in the Church’s name. They did not find any. By the time they recollected were (sic) they could find photocopies of these documents, 1st ? 3rd defendants have assigned the Church land to the 4th ? 5th defendants without their consent, and authority sought and had worst still without permission from the appropriate authority, authorizing such as condition and duration applied in the granting of the Church certificate of incorporation which reads in italics ….?
(18) That the 1st ? 3rd defendant (sic) brandish a power of attorney bearing their father’s name as the owner of the land and Church in dispute and that it is their father’s private property which they have sold and asked the plaintiff to vacate for the new occupants. The plaintiffs were bewildered by these sales of the Church and land, and the warning to vacate the Church premises of the ownership for the 4th and 5th defendant?
By the foregoing facts as pleaded, the pertinent question is whether there is any issue that has arisen there from that can be decided without recourse to the C.A.M.A. or put in another way
9
whether the issues involve the regulation, running or management or control of the plaintiff.
The issue in this case as gleaned from the plaintiffs (sic) statement of claim is whether the lands in dispute is the property of the Church or personal property of the father of the 1st ? 3rd defendants who was their father. The plaintiff avers that it owns the land having been issued with a statutory certificate of occupancy. On the death of their founder, his children now started brandishing power of attorney showing that the land belongs to their father personally and consequent upon this, sold the land to the rest defendants.
The issue in this case i
