EBITEINYE v. IYEYEMI & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16389(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, March 07, 2022
CA/PH/269/2015
Before Our Lordships:
Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Olabode Abimbola Adegbehingbe Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
MRS. JONAH-BONNIE CHRISTIANA EBITEINYE (Substituted Muna Ikoko (Deceased) By The Order Of Court On 1st Day Of April, 2015) APPELANT(S)
And
1. MRS. A. K. IYEYEMI 2. THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL RIVERS STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
POSITION OF LAW TO THE RULE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME A CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE
The law is settled that the law or rules applicable to a cause of action or event is the law/rules in operation when the cause of action arose. See the cases Crutech V. Mr. L. O. Obeten (Supra) and Obiuweubi V. C.B.N (Supra) in which it was held as follows:
“Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action is determined by examining the law conferring jurisdiction at the time the suit is instituted and trial commences.” RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
POSITION OF LAW FOR A CASE TO BE COMPETENT
The position is that for a case to be competent, it has to be initiated by due process of law as a condition precedent without which the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. See the case of Lado V. CPC (2011) 12 SCNJ 383. RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
THE EFFECT OF AN UNSIGNED INITIATING PROCESS
The effect of an unsigned initiating process was discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Omega Bank Nig. Plc. V. OBC Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 249) 1964 at 1993, where per Niki Tobi, JSC (OBM) had this to say:
“A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious.”
See also Bovoa V. FRN & Anor. (2017) LPELR–43006 (CA) & Ibeke V. Nzegwu & Ors. (2017) LPELR–43056 (CA) 7–12, Paras. D–C where the Court of Appeal per Nimper, JCA held that:
“…the Writ of summons is an originating process and must be endorsed in satisfaction of the requirement of law which make up the conditions precedent for the invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, processes filed by legal practitioners must also satisfy the requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act and the High Court Law or Rules of Court on how such processes are to be signed.” RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
DUTY OF THE COURT ON WASTING ITS TIME
A Court of law is enjoined not to embark on wasteful academic exercise that would not serve any useful purpose. See the cases of Awofisayo V. Ogun State Government (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1719) 158 at 177, Paras. F–G; Popoola V. State (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 485 and also Ecobank V. Honeywell Flour Mills (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 55. RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Rivers State (coram Hon. Justice A. l lyayi-Lamikanra) sitting in Port Harcourt and delivered on the 18th day of March 2008. The lower Court upheld the Plaintiff/Respondent’s claims and accordingly gave judgment in her favour.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS APPEAL
The Plaintiff/1st Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent) filed this suit on the 4th day of November 2002 at the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt claiming against the Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter called the “Appellant”) and the Honourable Attorney-General of Rivers State (representing the Rivers State Government and hereinafter referred to as the “2nd Respondent”) as follows:
“a. A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled by Purchase from the Rivers State Government to the statutory right of occupancy over and above the leasehold property situate/lying at and called Plot 11 in Block 255/ Orije Layout Port Harcourt otherwise then called No. 10 lkot Ekpene Street, Port Harcourt and presently renumbered No. 16 Sangana Street, Port Harcourt.
b. A declaration that any deed of assignment/Power of Attorney/Certificate of occupancy or any other deed whatsoever regarding the said leasehold property in dispute which vests any form of interest or title on the Defendant or her assign is null and void and of no effect.
c. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, agents, servants and/or privies or otherwise howsoever from further trespass to the property in dispute.
d. N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as damages for trespass.”
With leave of Court, the Respondent on the 6th day of July 2004 filed an Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to Order of Court made on the 5th of July 2004. The processes were duly served on the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent who had been joined by the Honourable Court upon the application of the 1st Respondent. The parties filed their respective pleadings.
The Respondent’s case was that the property, the subject matter of the suit was sold to her about 1978 by the then Abandoned Properties Implementation Committee and that following the aforesaid purchase in 1978 she appointed Mr. Webber Pokubo as her agent to manage and superintend over the said property. After the departure of Mr. Webber Pokubo, another agent was appointed in February 1983 to serve as Caretaker in respect of the property. Further in December 1998 she became aware of interference with the property owing to claims made thereto by the Appellant. It was as a result of these claims that this suit was filed with the claims aforestated.
The Appellant’s case was that the property, the subject matter of this suit originally belonged to Madam Catherine Njoku and acquired by the Rivers State Government via an acquisition notice after the Nigerian civil war. In May 1982 the Rivers State Government Task Force on Government properties offered the property for sale by letter dated the 28th day of May 1982 to Mrs. Stella Dingo, the Appellant’s predecessor-in-title. An agreement in respect of this was duly executed and registered and the Rivers State Government informed the occupants of the property of these developments. It was through the said Mrs. Stella Dingo that the Appellant acquired her interest in the said Property. The 2nd Respondent also filed her Statement of Defence substantially corroborating the facts put forward by the Appellant.
The parties witnesses’ filed their written depositions. The 1st Respondent on the 20th of June, 2005 adopted her written Statement on oath and was subsequently cross-examined. The 1st Respondent’s second witness (PW2) was Webber Pokubo and he adopted his written statement on oath on the 16th of December 2006 and was duly cross-examined. The 1st Respondent’s case was thus closed. The Appellant testified and thereafter Mr. Thankgod George Ekine, a Deputy Director in the Ministry of Lands and Survey Bureau and the Deeds Registrar gave evidence for the 2nd Respondent. Written addresses were filed by the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. The said addresses were adopted and the case adjourned for judgment. On the 18th day of March 2008 the Honourable Court gave judgment in terms already set out hereinbefore.
It is instructive to note that before the first appeal which was filled in this case and struck out for lack of insufficient filling fee, the original Appellant, Mrs. Muna Ikoko died and was substituted by her daughter on the 1st day of April, 2015 by an order of Court.
In compliance with the Rules of Court of Appeal, the Appellant and 1st Respondent filed and served Briefs of Arguments in this Civil Appeal. The 2nd Respondent did not file brief. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 18/1/2018, deemed properly filed and served on 22/10/2018 and also the Appellant’s Reply Brief filed on 12/9/2019 were identified by G. T. Okirigwe, Esq. who prepared same being the learned counsel for the Appellant. He adopted both as their argument in this appeal. He nominated three (3) issues for consideration of the appeal as follows:
a. Whether the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction and competence to entertain the Claimants’ suit, when the Writ of Summons did not contain the address of the Claimants and was not signed by the Claimants or their Legal Practitioner as required by law?
b. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower Court was right when it declined to uphold the claims of the Appellant that the suit was incompetent?
c. Assuming, but not conceding, that the suit was competent, whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower Court was right in awarding judgment to the Plaintiff/Respondent, i.e. the 1st Respondent?
C. Nwankwo, Esq. identified the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 19/2/2019 which was prepared by him being the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent. He adopted it as their argument against the appeal. He submitted three (3) issues for determination of the appeal, thus:
1. Whether the trial Court was right when it countenanced the Writ of Summons filed in this suit and exercised jurisdiction in the case. (Distilled from Ground 12).
2. Whether the suit is caught up by statute of limitation so as to deprive the trial Court of jurisdiction to entertain same. (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when based on the facts and circumstances of the case he entered judgment for the 1st Respondent. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 5, 9, and 10).
The distilled issues as shown above are similar in form and questions, which any set can be used in the determination of this appeal with ease. I therefore choose the set of Respondents’ issues that tied their respective issues to the grounds of appeal contained on the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 18/1/2018 and deemed filed on 22/1/2018.
DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
ISSUE ONE
In his argument of issue one as quoted above, the learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the cases of CBN V. S.A.P. NIG. (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 152 at 177; Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 at 595, (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and Salati V. Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 198 at 218 to contend that there were features in the case which robbed the trial Court of jurisdiction to entertain the case including the failure of the claimant/1st Respondent to initiate the suit in compliance with due process of the law and upon fulfilment of all conditions precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction. He said that this is principally as a result of the incompetence of the originating process which did not contain the address of the Claimant/1st Respondent and that it was not signed by the Claimant or her legal practitioner as required by the law. He referred to pages 1–6 of the Record of Appeal containing the writ of summons and Order 4 Rule 1 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006 to buttress his argument on this point. He cited the case of Kida V. Ogunmola (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 327) 402 at 417, Ratio 8 where the Supreme Court, per Oguntade, JSC (Rtd.) emphasized that originating process must be issued with details required of it under the Rules of Court and a failure to commence an action with such a valid Writ of Summons containing all the required details will render the action invalid.
Counsel submitted that the failure in this case to endorse the address of the Claimant/1st Respondent on the Writ of Summons is not a mere irregularity but a fundamental non-compliance which goes to the root of the action and vitiates same. Relied on the case of Equity Bank of Nig. Ltd. V. Halilco Nigeria Ltd. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 337) 438 at 452.
That the Writ of Summons is defective and therefore the totality of the proceedings on the incompetent initiating process including the judgment of the trial Court are null and void and liable to be set aside. Referred to Kida V. Ogunmola (Supra) Per Mustapha, JSC at P. 417.
That the defective Writ of Summons rendered it incapable of invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court in this case. Cited and relied on the cases of Samuel Alabi & Ors. V. Bilawu Oyewumi & Ors. (2015) LPELR–24271 (CA) 24, Paras. C–F; SLB Consortium Ltd. V. NNPC (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 583) 1902 at 1915, Paras. A–B and Etubom Ewa Nsa E. Henshaw & Ors. V. Chief Ekeng Ewa Henshaw & Ors. (2017) LPELR–42637 (CA). Also referred to the case ofBuhari V. Adebayo (2014) LPELR–2346 where it was held that:
“Failure to sign the writ in the manner required by law, fundamentally affects the validity of the Appellants’ suit as it calls the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court into question.”
Counsel argued that the unsigned Writ of Summons in the instant case is incompetent and the incompetence is incurable by way of amendment, no matter how ingenious. That the signatures on the accompanying Statement of Claim filed along with the said Writ are incapable of ameliorating or curing the fundamental incompetence or defect of the Originating Process. Cited the case of Hon. Uche A. Ilobi V. Hon. Alphonsus Uzoegwu & Ors. (2003) LPELR – CA/E/EPT/8/2003.
He urged us to set aside the unsigned Writ of Summons including the proceedings and judgment of the trial Court predicated on the incompetent Writ of Summons as the jurisdiction of that Court was not invoked properly. He further urged us to resolve this issue one in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents.
In response to the arguments on issue one, the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent contended that in the instant case, although the Appellant sought leave to file an Additional Ground of Appeal and to amend his Original Notice and Grounds of Appeal to incorporate the Additional Ground of Appeal; that he failed to seek leave of the Court of Appeal to raise and canvass the fresh issue arising from the Additional Ground of Appeal before the Court of Appeal.
He submitted that the failure to obtain the prior leave to argue the fresh issue in Ground 12 of the Amended Grounds of Appeal has rendered the issue and all the argument canvassed thereon incompetent. That the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to countenance the said fresh issue. Relied on the case of Agwam Obioha V. Chief Nwafor Duru (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 365) 631, Ratio 9 in urging us to strike out Ground 12 and the issue distilled therefrom.
He said that the Appellant heavily relied on Order 4 Rule 1 and Order 6 Rules 1 and 2(3) of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006 not minding that the suit was filed in 2002.
That the Writ of Summons, the Appellant referred to was filed in 2002, four (4) years before the 2006 Rules came into force. At that time the applicable Rules was of 1987. He said that the law is settled that the law or rules applicable to a cause of action or event is the law or rules in operation when the cause of action arose. Referred to the cases of Cross River University of Technology (CRUTECH) V. Mr. Lawrence O. Obeten (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1271) 588, Ratio 8 and Obiuweubi V. CBN (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465, Ratio 8.
Counsel referred to Order 5 Rules 1 and 2 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 and argued that the provisions did not make it mandatorily for litigant or his counsel to sign a Writ for it to be valid. That it suffices if the Court Registrar issues the Writ by signing same as done in the instant case. That also it was not compulsory that a Writ must contain the full address of the Claimant. That Order 5 Rule 2(a) of 1987 Rules said it shall “contain the name and place of abode of the Plaintiff and of the Defendant so far as they can be ascertained.” That the rule was meant to be flexible and that it was not fatal if the place of abode of the plaintiff was not ascertained and supplied.
He submitted that where a legal practitioner is required to sign a Court process, it must be specifically provided for by the rules. Referred to the case of Richfield Technologies Ltd. V. Sino Asia Energy Group Coy. Ltd (unreported) Appeal No. CA/A/127/2016 delivered by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division on 31/3/2017.
He contended that the Writ of Summons as captured in Form 1 in the Appendix to the said 1987 Rules has no provision for signing of the Writ of Summons by any other person other than the Registrar. Counsel referred us to the said Form 1 and urged us to resolve issue one against the Appellant, in favour of the Respondents.
In reaction to the 1st Respondent’s response on this issue one, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the preliminary point/objection raised and argued in the 1st Respondent Brief did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 10 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 for failure to file a Notice of Preliminary Objection. Cited Chief Aworokin & Ors. V. Apostle Taiye Adeniran (2010) LPELR–8595 (CA) 29–30, Paras. F–C.
That the complaint is not against the competence of the appeal itself or all the grounds of appeal but only against Ground 12 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal which is incapable of invalidating the entire appeal even if it is successful as there remain other grounds (1–11) capable of sustaining the appeal. Referred to the case of Bredero Nig. Ltd. V. Shyantor Nig. Ltd & Ors. (2016) LPELR–40205 (CA) in urging us to similarly dismiss this objection for incompetence.
Counsel argued that the issue of an unsigned Writ of Summons is one that question the jurisdiction of the Court, as such, it can be raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court without leave.
That the issue raised by the Appellant in Ground 12 of the Notice of Appeal and argued in issue one is one that questioned the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit at the time it did and therefore, the Appellant does not need the leave of the Court to argue same. Referred to the cases of Elugbe V. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319 at 334; Oke V. Oke (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 224 & H. R. Ltd. V. F. Inv. Ltd (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 326.
He also cited and relied on the case of Moses V. State (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 992) 458 at 503.
He submitted that the Writ of Summons is invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction on the lower Court. That the Rules of Court cited by the Respondents’ Counsel which according to him were the ones in existence at the time of the suit in no way stopped a counsel from signing the Court process. Referred to the case of Nzom & Anor V. Jinadu (1987) 2 SC. 20.
In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant on reason of incompetence of the Writ of Summons.
RESOLUTION
Issue one under reference is predicated on the competence of the Originating process, i.e. the Writ of Summons that initiated the suit at the lower Court and the assumption of jurisdiction by the lower Court to entertain the case.
The Appellant in this appeal referred to pages 1–6 of the Record of Appeal containing the Writ of Summons under attack which attracted my visitation to the said pages of the record to ascertain the undisputed issues of address of the Claimant/1st Respondent and non-signing of the Writ of Summons by either the Claimant or his legal representative. I found the Writ of Summons as stated above and issued by the Court Registrar who signed and stamped it on 04/11/2002 as shown on the face of the said Writ.
The question at this junction is whether the issues of address of the Claimant/1st Respondent and non-signing of the Writ of Summons by either the Claimant or his legal representative is fatal and rendered the Originating Process incompetent.
Before I delve into the issues of the address and signing the Writ of Summons, it is of essence to deal with the issue of additional Ground 12 of the Amended Notice of Appeal. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent that failure to obtain the prior leave of the Court of Appeal to argue the fresh issue raised in Ground 12 of the Amended Notice of Appeal has rendered the issue and all the arguments canvassed thereon incompetent. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Agwam Obioha V. Chief Nwafor Duru (Supra). The learned counsel to the Appellant is of the opinion that the preliminary point/objection against the competence of Ground 12 of the Grounds of Appeal is incompetent for failure to give notice of preliminary objection. He relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Chief Aworokin V. Apostle T. Adeniran (Supra) and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Okereke V. James (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 339 and Odunukwe V. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 at 423 Paras. E–G in which it was held that:
“Where a Respondent complains about the competency of a Ground of Appeal, and there is another Ground of Appeal or other Grounds of Appeal that can sustain the appeal, the Respondent ought to file a motion on notice to strike out the incompetent ground of appeal and not a preliminary objection. In other words, a preliminary objection is filed only against the hearing of an appeal and not against one or more grounds of appeal. It is therefore wrong to file a preliminary objection to challenge every error in a Court process filed by an Appellant. In the instant case, the Respondents ought to have filed a motion on notice for the striking out of the incompetent grounds of appeal in the Appellant’s notice of appeal. Muhammed V. Military Administrator, Plateau State (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 740) 524; N.D.I.C V. Oranu (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 183 P. 423, Paras. E–G.
I am convinced by the position of the learned counsel to the Appellant on failure to file Notice of Preliminary Objection against the competence of Ground 12 of the Amended Grounds and Notice of Appeal. This is so because the complaint is not against the competence of the appeal itself or all the grounds but only the said Ground 12. The failure to file notice rendered the complaint ineffective and therefore discountenance for being incompetent. I so hold. See the cases of Aworokin V. Adeniran (Supra); Bredero Nig. Ltd V. Shyantor Nig. Ltd. (Supra) on this point.
Now on the paused question above, the Writ of Summons as contained in the Record of Appeal was filed on 04/11/2002 at the lower Court and as at that time the operational rules applicable to the cause of action was the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 and not the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2006 referred to by the Appellant. The law is settled that the law or rules applicable to a cause of action or event is the law/rules in operation when the cause of action arose. See the cases Crutech V. Mr. L. O. Obeten (Supra) and Obiuweubi V. C.B.N (Supra) in which it was held as follows:
“Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action is determined by examining the law conferring jurisdiction at the time the suit is instituted and trial commences.”
It is important to look at the applicable rules to determine the extent to which it has been infringed by the 1st Respondent with regard to the Writ of Summons filed in this case. Order 5 of Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 is the relevant rules on Writ of Summons. It provides thus:
“1 – (1) A Writ of Summons shall be issued by the Registrar, or other office of the Court empowered to issue summons, on application.
(2) The application shall ordinarily be made in writing by the Plaintiff’s solicitor by completing Form 1 in the Appendix to these rules; but the Registrar or other officer as aforesaid, where the applicant for a Writ of summons is illiterate, or has no solicitor, may dispense with a written application and instead himself record full particulars of an oral application made and on that record a Writ of summons may be prepared, signed and issued.”
“2 The Writ of summons shall –
(a) Contain the name and place of abode of the Plaintiff and of the Defendant so far as they can be ascertained; and
(b) State briefly and clearly
(i) The subject matter of the claim, and the relief sought for, and
(ii) The date of the Writ, and place (called the return-place) of hearing.”
Order 5 Rule 12(1) of the same 1987 rules (Supra) provided as follows: “Where a plaintiff sues by a legal practitioner, the Writ shall be endorsed with the Plaintiff’s address and the Legal Practitioner’s name or firm and a business address of his within jurisdiction.”
(2) Where the Plaintiff sues in person, the Writ shall be endorsed with:-
(a) The address of his place of residence and if his place of residence is not within the jurisdiction or if he has no place of residence, the address of a place within the jurisdiction at or to which documents for him may be delivered or sent;
(b) his occupation and
(c) an address for service.”
My perusal of Form 1, form of Writ of Summons shows that it has columns for the above stated requirements. The form does not contain the address of the Claimant/1st Respondent as required by the rules. No endorsement of either the Claimant/1st Respondent or that of the legal representative. This constituted a failure of proper commencement of the action before the lower Court. I found and so hold. See the cases of Kida V. Ogunmola (Supra) and Equity Bank of Nig. Ltd. V. Halilco Nig. Ltd. (Supra) on this point.
It is therefore a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court without obtaining leave to do so. The said Ground 12 as contained in the Amended Notice of Appeal and argued under this issue one is one that question the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit.
The Writ of Summons having not been signed by either the counsel who filed it or the 1st Respondent herself, it is invalid and incapable of conferring jurisdiction on the lower Court. The Rules of Court cited by the learned counsel to the Respondents that is Order 5 Rules 1 and 2 of the River State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 never stopped a counsel from signing the Court process. See Nzom & Anor. V. Jinadu (Supra). The position is that for a case to be competent, it has to be initiated by due process of law as a condition precedent without which the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. See the case of Lado V. CPC (2011) 12 SCNJ 383.
The effect of an unsigned initiating process was discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Omega Bank Nig. Plc. V. OBC Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 249) 1964 at 1993, where per Niki Tobi, JSC (OBM) had this to say:
“A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. As held in cases examined, the document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious.”
See also Bovoa V. FRN & Anor. (2017) LPELR–43006 (CA) & Ibeke V. Nzegwu & Ors. (2017) LPELR–43056 (CA) 7–12, Paras. D–C where the Court of Appeal per Nimper, JCA held that:
“…the Writ of summons is an originating process and must be endorsed in satisfaction of the requirement of law which make up the conditions precedent for the invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, processes filed by legal practitioners must also satisfy the requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act and the High Court Law or Rules of Court on how such processes are to be signed.”
Flowing from the above enunciations, it is clear that the Writ of Summons as the Originating Process at the lower Court was and still is an incompetent document which robbed the trial Court the jurisdiction to hear and determined the suit as constituted. This I so hold.
In the light of the above, this issue one is resolved against the Respondents and in favour of the Appellant. With this resolution, I do not see the need to proceed and consider the remaining two issues in this appeal. To do so, will only result in academic exercise and waste of ample judicial time fruitlessly. A Court of law is enjoined not to embark on wasteful academic exercise that would not serve any useful purpose. See the cases of Awofisayo V. Ogun State Government (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1719) 158 at 177, Paras. F–G; Popoola V. State (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 485 and also Ecobank V. Honeywell Flour Mills (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 55.
Based on the aforestated, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of the trial Court delivered by Hon. Justice A. I. Iyayi–Lamikanra on the 18th of March, 2008 is hereby set aside. The incompetent Writ of Summons issued by the lower Court without jurisdiction is therefore struck out.
No order as to costs.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Abdullahi, J.C.A., and would add by way of emphasis that a document that is required to be signed which does not bear the signature of the author or owner of the document, as the application for a writ of summons, in this case, is worthless and nothing can be built on it vide the case of Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc V Rabiu (2003) FWLR (Pt.149) 1564, where, for example, the Court held that a notice of appeal, an originating process like a writ of summons, that was unsigned is bad. See also the case of Mohammed Ali V. L. Ambrosini Limited (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 148 to the effect that an unsigned document is of no value.
OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
G. J. Okirigwe, with him, S. J. Uzochukwu, and C. C. Anioke, Esq. For Appellant(s)
G. O. Uwalaka, Esq. For Respondent(s)
