MR. ALIU ARIBIDESI AZEEZ & ANOR v. PRINCE ADEYEMI JOEL ADEMOLA
(2019)LCN/13632(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 9th day of July, 2019
CA/AK/209/2016
RATIO
JURISDICTION: MEANING
Jurisdiction means the power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to Court by feuding parties in any proceeding. See Anyanwu v. Ogunewe & Ors (2014) LPELR 22184 (SC); Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (pt 1537) 144; Nsirim v. Amadi (2016) LPELR 26053 (SC); Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (pt 1544) 175; A. G. Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2016) LPELR 41147 (pt 1546) 210. PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHEN A COURT IS SAID TO HAVE JURISDICTION
A Court is invested with jurisdiction to entertain a matter when firstly it is properly constituted, secondly, the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court, and there is no feature in the case which prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction and thirdly, the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (pt 1500) 531; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (pt 1500) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (pt 1553) 387. The above elements must co-exist in order for the Court to assume jurisdiction. PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION BY A COURT
Where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding no matter well conducted will be marooned in the interacted web of nullity. See LOKPOBIRI V. OGOLA (2016) 3 NWLR (PT 1499) 328. PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: THE WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM DETERMINE WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION OR NOT
The law is trite that it is a claimants claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and or the statement of claim that determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter and no other document should be examined. See Akpamgbo ? Okadigbo & Ors v. Chidi & Ors (2015) LPELR 24565 (SC); Jev & Anr v. Iyortyom & Ors (2014) LPELR 23000 (SC); Ecobank v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & Ors (2018) LPELR 45125 (SC). PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MR. ALIU ARIBIDESI AZEEZ
2. ALIU AZEEZ NIGERIA LTD Appellant(s)
AND
PRINCE ADEYEMI JOEL ADEMOLA Respondent(s)
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Osun State sitting at Ilesha Judicial Division delivered by His Lordship W. O. Akanbi on 2nd December, 2014. Before the lower Court, the Appellants and the respondent were the defendants and the plaintiff respectively.
The facts of this case which transformed into the appeal are simple.
The case of Respondent (The Plaintiff at the lower Court) is that he advanced a friendly loan of N5,000, 000, 00K which the Appellant (Defendants at the Lower Court) refused to pay despite repeated demands. The Respondent thus approached the lower Court by a writ of summons taken out at the Registry of the Lower Court on the 23rd day of December, 2013 praying for the following reliefs:
The plaintiff?s claims against the Defendants jointly and severally are as follows:
1. AN ORDER OF COURT directing the immediate payment to the plaintiff by the Defendant the sum of (N5, 000, 000. 00K) Five Million Naira Only being the outstanding balance in respect of the friendly loan transaction of 18th day of December,
1
2012 executed by the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. AN ORDER OF COURT for the payment of interest on the said (N5, 000, 000, 00K) Five Million Naira Only at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from the date of judgment and thereafter until final liquidation of the whole debt.
3. AN ORDER OF COURT for the payment of the sum of Four Hundred Thousand Naira (N400, 000. 00K) by the defendant to the plaintiff being the professional fees paid by the plaintiff to his counsel in respect of this action for the recovery of the said debt of (N5, 000, 000, 00K) Five Million Naira Only.
The Respondent filed along with the writ of summons statement of claim, statement of oath of witnesses, list of witnesses, list of document to be relied upon at the trial and a motion for summary judgment under Order II of the Rules of the Lower Court.
?
The Appellant upon being served with the originating process as well as the motion for summary judgment entered conditional appearance and equally filed statement of defence. At the hearing of the motion for summary judgment respondent counsel moved the application and adopted his written address wherein he urged the
2
lower Court to grant application more importantly on the admission of the Appellants that he truly borrowed the sum of N5, 000, 000, 00 from the Respondent.
The Appellant equally adopted his processes and urged the Court to refuse the application. And by a well considered judgment the lower Court granted leg 1 and 2 of the claims of the Respondent and directed the Respondent to adduce evidence with respect to his third claim being a claim for special damages.
The Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision filed a solitary ground notice of appeal. The appellants by an order of this Honourable Court granted on 17th day of October, 2017, filed an Amended Consolidated Notice of Appeal on 20th October, 2017 containing a lone ground of appeal. Thereafter, the parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument in line with the rules regulating the hearing of civil appeals in this Court. The appeal was heard on 8th April, 2019 and during the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants S. Echonwu, Esq, adopted the appellants brief of argument filed on 28th October, 2017, and appellants reply brief filed on 27th February, 2018 as his
3
argument for the appeal. He urged the court to allow the appeal. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondent O. Sokoya Esq. adopted the respondent?s brief of argument filed on 8th February, 2018, as representing his argument against the appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss it.
In the appellant?s brief of argument, the learned counsel for the appellants distilled a lone issue for determination to wit:
?Whether the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on suit No HIL/86/2013 between Mr. Aribidesi Azeez & Anor v. Prince Adeyemi Joel Ademola.?
The respondent in its brief of argument equally nominated a sole issue for determination as follows:
?Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, whether the lower Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent?s case.?
A close look at the two sets of issues shows that they are the same and identical in substance. I will therefore, decide the appeal on the lone issue donated by the appellants who are the owners of the appeal.
?
In arguing the sole issue in this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
4
that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on Suit No. HIL/86/2013 between Mr. Aliu Aribidesi Azeez & Anr v. Prince Adeyemi Joel Ademola for the reason that the plaintiff has no lawful cause of action against the defendant.
That the loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is an illegal contract.
Counsel contended that the appellants countered the respondent?s application for summary judgment and has raised the issue of illegality of the transaction. That on the summary judgment and the main trial the jurisdiction of the lower Court was orally challenged. That the law is that, before the lower Court could exercise its discretion to adjudicate on the suit, it must decide whether or not it has jurisdiction to so do. He cited the cases of Ukwu v. Bunge (1997) LPELR 3352 (SC), A. G. Federation v. Ali Abacha (2010) LPELR 8997 (CA), Ogboru v. Udughan (2012) LPELR 82857 (SC) for the view.
He submitted that the lower Court having failed to decide on whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit, the condition precedent to the assumption of its jurisdiction was not met. He urge the Court to resolve the sole
5
issue in favour of the appellant and allow the appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower Court possessed all the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the claim of the respondent because, said counsel, the subject matter of the action is within the jurisdictional competence of the lower Court.
Counsel submitted that, what determine the jurisdiction of the Court is the statement of claim. He cited ADEYEMI V. OPEYORI (1976) 9 ? 10 SC 31 @ 35; EMEKA V. OKOROAFOR (2017) LPELR ? 41738 (SC). Counsel stated that the originating processes filed by the plaintiff/respondent has discloses his claims which is simple contract and falls under the jurisdiction of the lower Court. He argued that since the lower Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters arising from breach and or simple contract, the appellants cannot be heard to argue that the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter, more importantly having admitted that they took the sum of N5, 000, 000.00 as friendly loan from the respondent. He cited Chidoka v. First City Finance Company Ltd (2013) ALL FWLR (pt. 659) 1024 for the point.
6
Counsel submitted that the respondent?s suit at the lower Court was for summary judgment procedure and all the issues raised by the appeal were dealt with by the lower Court. That a party who had given notice to produce a document is presumed to know the content of the document and is at liberty to use the secondary copy in his possession and the failure of the respondent to produce it cannot vitiate the proceedings. He cited Emeka v. Chuba Ikpeazu (2017) LPELR 41920 (SC) for the view and urged the Court to resolve the only issue in this appeal in favour of the respondent and dismiss the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant in his reply brief merely repeated his earlier arguments.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
Jurisdiction means the power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to Court by feuding parties in any proceeding. See Anyanwu v. Ogunewe & Ors (2014) LPELR 22184 (SC); Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (pt 1537) 144; Nsirim v. Amadi (2016) LPELR 26053 (SC); Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (pt 1544) 175; A. G. Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2016) LPELR 41147 (pt 1546) 210.
A Court is invested with jurisdiction to entertain a matter when firstly it
7
is properly constituted, secondly, the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court, and there is no feature in the case which prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction and thirdly, the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (pt 1500) 531; Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (pt 1500) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (pt 1553) 387. The above elements must co-exist in order for the Court to assume jurisdiction.
Where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding no matter well conducted will be marooned in the interacted web of nullity. See LOKPOBIRI V. OGOLA (2016) 3 NWLR (PT 1499) 328.
In the instant case, the appellants quarrel with the subject matter and not the constitution of the Court and the partly jurisdiction of the lower Court. He crowned the transactions as an illegal contract.
The law is trite that it is a claimant?s claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and or the statement of claim that determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter and no
8
other document should be examined. See Akpamgbo ? Okadigbo & Ors v. Chidi & Ors (2015) LPELR 24565 (SC); Jev & Anr v. Iyortyom & Ors (2014) LPELR 23000 (SC); Ecobank v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & Ors (2018) LPELR 45125 (SC).
The claims of the respondent before the lower Court which led to this appeal is in respect of outstanding balance of the sum of Five Million Naira (N5, 000, 000, 00) loan to the appellants which the appellants admitted that he truly borrowed the said amount claimed by the respondent. There is no issue with regard to the constitutionality of the Court and the parties before the Court. The only issue in my respective view is the issue that the plaintiff has no lawful cause of action on the ground that the loan transaction is an illegal transaction and therefore, the Court lack jurisdiction as contended by the appellants. The cause of action, from the available evidence before the Court is lawful and falls within the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain same. The appellants cannot be heard to turn around after seeking and obtaining money from the respondent and infact, admitted the receipt of same and raise
9
a defence that the transaction is illegal as a cover to absolve themselves
