FIDELITY BANK PLC. V. MRS. COMFORT OGIRI
(2012)LCN/5471(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 18th day of June, 2012
RATIO
“The result is that the two Grounds of Appeal stand on their own, with no issues derived therefrom. Ipso facto this lacuna makes the Grounds of Appeal liable to be struck out and indeed are deemed abandoned. It is liable to be ignored. E.B. UKIRI V, GECO-PRAKA LTD. (2010) 16 NWLR Pt 1220, 544 @ 565. See A.W. (NIG) LTD V. SUPERMARITIME NIG. LTD. (2005) 6 NWLR Pt 922, 563. If no issue is formulated from a Ground, it is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out. RASHEED OLAIYA V. THE STATE (2010) 2 SCN 163 at 169-170; LABIYI V. ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 NWLR Pt. 258, 139.” Per PEMU, J.C.A.
“The prime purpose of particulars of error, is to elucidate on the Grounds of Appeal. See FRANCIS SHANU & ANOR. VS. AFRIBANK NIG. PLC. (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 185 page 216 paragraph b.” Per PEMU, J.C.A.
APPEAL: ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS CAN FORMULATE ISSUES AND EVEN ADOPT THEIR OWN ISSUES
“Decidedly, Courts that sit on appeal are at liberty to adopt, or even formulate issues, which in their view, would determine the real question in an appeal – ADUKA V. ADEJOH (1994) 5 NWLR Pt 346 at 582; EGWE V. EGWE (2007) 1 NWLR Pt 1014. 71. But where, the Court cannot even comprehend the grouse in the Ground of Appeal, how can it attempt to formulate issues therefrom? Order 6 Rule 2(2) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 has this to say: Order 6 Rule 2(2): “Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated” Rule 3: “Any ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall not be permitted, save the general ground that the Judgment is against the weight of the evidence, any ground of appeal or any part thereof which is not permitted under this Rule may be struck out by the Court of its own motion or on application by the Respondent.” It is apparent that the Appellant has failed woefully to comply with the provision of the law as it is. This fact alone is enough to dispose of this appeal. An appeal can only be meaningfully entertained if there is a valid Notice of Appeal, encapsulating clear, concise, precise and arguable Grounds of Appeal.”Per PEMU, J.C.A.
“Where issues for determination formulated by the Appellant is imprecise and riddled with irrelevant complexities and is incomprehensible; where it is too wide, the Rules of Court demand that this Court jettisons same. LAGGA V. SARHUNA (2008) 16 NWLR Pt. 1114, 427; BRIGGS V. CLORSN (2005) 12 NWLR Pt.938. 59.” Per PEMU, J.C.A.
“In A.G. OF LAGOS STATE V. DOSUMU (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.111) 552 S.C. the Apex Court defined jurisdiction, as the limits imposed on the power of a validly constituted court, to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process, by reference to the subject matter of the issues, or to the persons, between whom the issues are joined, or to the kind of reliefs sought. But, with respect, this can only be achieved, where the Grounds of Appeal and the issues distilled therefrom are comprehensible and clear. The Court would do nothing in vain”Per PEMU, J.C.A.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Interlocutory decision of Honourable Justice O.A. Taiwo (Mrs),of the Lagos State High Court delivered on the 13th day of November 2008, in Suit No. LD/1714/2006, whereby she dismissed the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant.
The crux of the objection is this-
(a) The Claimant claim (as per paragraph 33 of the Claimant’s Statement of Claim in the sum of N16,087,622.28 (Sixteen million, eighty seven thousand, six hundred and twenty two naira twenty eight kobo) plus interest, fees and costs specified therein) against the Defendant/Counter-Claimant is frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of power of this Honourable Court and same Claimant’s claim be dismissed by this Honourable Court.
(b) That the Defendant/Counter-Claimant’s claim in the sum of N6,013,681.54 (Six million, thirteen thousand, six hundred and eighty-one naira, fifty four kobo) (plus interest specified therein) against the Claimant be granted by the Honourable Court.
The grounds for the application are in regards to the averments contained in paragraphs 2, 3(a) – (l), 4 and 5 of the Defendant’s Defence and Counter-claim (and the accompanying Written Statement on Oath, of
Defendant/Counter Claimant’s sole witness, list of documents and Documentary evidence attached thereto).
BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS
In the Court below, the Respondent (who was Claimant in the Court below) had by Writ of Summons dated and filed on the 2nd of November 2006, claimed against the Appellant (Defendant in the Court below) the following:
(a) The sum of N16,087,622.28 (Sixteen million, eighty seven thousand, six hundred and twenty two naira, twenty eight kobo) being terminal benefits due and payable by the Defendants to the Claimant for 13 years service as a senior member of staff in the Defunct Manny Bank Plc.
(b) Interest on the above sum at the rate of 21% per annum from 8th of December 2005 until judgment, and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum, until full and final liquidation.
(c) legal Solicitors fees assessed at N2,500,000.00 (Two million, five hundred thousand naira)
(d) Cost of this action. – pages 1 – 2 of the Record of Appeal.
This is essentially reproduced on paragraph 31 of the Statement of Claim filed on the 24th of April 2008.
The Claimant/Respondent had worked for the Defunct Manny Bank Plc, which had been merged with Fidelity Bank Plc. She worked with it for over thirteen (13) years having been employed vide letter dated 31st August, 1993.
Due to her contribution in the Appellant’s bank, she was promoted on a number of occasions and rose to the position of Principal Manager on Grade Level 13/7 with effect from July 1, 2004.
Sometime in 1999, the Respondent and many other senior employees of the Appellant’s bank were given some shares ex-gratia, without them soliciting for same.
The Respondent received three million, seven hundred and seventy-nine thousand, three hundred and sixteen units of shares, as part of the ex-gratia shares allocated to senior staff: She there after disposed of her shares, by selling same. Indeed the beneficiary had taken benefit under the shares. She retired from the Appellant’s bank in the year 2005.
On the 7th of December 2005, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent informing her that the shares given to the senior management staff during the initial public offer in 1999, has been converted to a share loan.
She was never offered the shares by the Appellant, to be repaid as loan (share loan). This is because the share certificate and the pre-signed but undated transfer forms in respect of the said shares were never executed by her, neither was it kept in the bank vault indicating that it was a share loan as stipulated in the Manny Bank staff handbook.
If she had known that it was a share loan, she would not have sold her shares to a third party.
On the 19th and 21st of December 2005 respectively, the Defendant wrote a letter to her, wherein it accepted her retirement and computed her terminal benefits to be N16,087,622.28 (Sixteen million, eighty seven thousand, six hundred and twenty-two naira, twenty-eight kobo) less the sum of N7,483,042.80, purportedly as senior management share loan, and another sum of N1,012,572.71 (One million, twelve thousand, five hundred and seventy-two naira, seventy-one kobo) as outstanding loan, leaving a balance of N7,592,006.66 (Seven million, five hundred and ninety-two thousand, six naira, sixty-six kobo) as being due to the Respondent.
She protested this, vide letter dated 20th December 2005, but to no avail. She wrote to the Chairman, House Committee on Labour, Employment and Productivity, Federal House of Representatives, National Assembly Complex Abuja, pleading for its intervention, and to compel the Appellant to pay her.
At the pendency of this case, the Defendant/Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 5th September 2008 seeking the dismissal of the Claimant/Respondent’s claim on the following grouse.
(a) That Claimant’s claim (as per paragraph 33) of Claimant’s Statement of Claim in the sum of N16,087,622.28 (Sixteen million, eighty seven thousand, six hundred and twenty-two naira, twenty-two kobo) (plus interest, fees and costs specified therein) against the Defendant/Counter-Claimant, is frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of process of this Honourable Court and same Claimant’s claim be dismissed by this Honourable Court.
(b) That the Defendant/Counter-Claimant’s claim in the sum of N6,013,681.54 (Six million, thirteen thousand, six hundred and eighty-one naira, fifty four kobo) (plus interest specified therein) against the Claimant be granted by this Honourable Court.
The Grounds of the Defendant/Counter-Claimant’s Preliminary Objection (in lieu of Demurrer) are as follows:
(1) Having regard to the averments contained in paragraphs 2, 3(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), 4 and 5 of the Defendant’s Defence and Counter-Claim (and the accompanying Written Statement on Oath, of Defendant/Counter-Claimant’s Sole Witness, List of Documents and Documentary Evidence attached thereto), the Defendant/Counter-Claimant raises preliminary issues of law specified hereunder:
7. In accordance with the Scheme of Merger approved by Securities and Exchange Commission, Central Bank of Nigeria and sanctioned by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1218/2005, “all rights (i.e. legal rights), assets, liabilities (i.e, legitimate – that which is lawful, legal, recognized by law or according to law), real property and intellectual property rights of FSB International Bank Plc and Manny Bank Plc are transferred to and shall be deemed vested in the Defendant/Counter-Claimant (i.e. possessing the final authority on such matters)”
2. The Scheme of Merger aforesaid, aimed at eradicating, all forms of unlawful enrichment by the Shareholders, Management and Staff of the Merging Parties, howsoever, enjoined on Manny Bank Plc who had no legal right to pay non-legitimate contractual liabilities, to its Management and Staff who resigned from its employment due to the Scheme of Merger, till the sanction of the Scheme of Merger by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1218/2005, when the Defendant/Counter -Claimant was mandatorily vested with the right (i.e. possessing the final authority to settle only legitimate – that which is lawful, legal, recognized by law), contractual liabilities of FSB International Bank Plc and Manny Bank Plc, dissolved by said Court Order on 23rd December, 2005.
3. The Defendant/Counter-Claimant, upon whom all rights assets, liabilities, undertakings, real property and intellectual property rights of FSB International Bank Plc and Manny Bank Plc were transferred and mandatorily vested in, (after the Federal High Court sanctioned said Scheme of Merger, without any further act or deeds), is the holder of vested right (i.e. the right so completely and definitely belonging to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant, who has the final authority on all said rights, assets, liabilities, real property and intellectual property rights, howsoever, transferred to and vested in the Defendant/Counter- Claimant”
4. Ex-Gratia Payment (mandatorily discretionary as specified in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.29 of Manny Bank Plc Staff Handbook) is not an enforceable and binding obligation on the Defendant/Counter-Claimant), having regard to the Scheme of Merger aforesaid, when the Defendant/Counter-Claimant assumed responsibility for legitimate contractual liabilities which are enforceable and binding obligations on the part of the Defendant/Counter-Claimant”
5. The Management and Staff of FSB International Bank Plc (the other party to the Scheme of Merger aforesaid), fully complied with the vested mandate to the Defendant/Counter-Claimant), sanctioned by said Order of the Federal High Court and none of the members of said Management and Staff of FSB International Bank Plc who resigned from its employment due to the Scheme of Merger aforesaid has made any speculative demands to, or filed any lawsuit against the Defendant/Counter-Claimant (in contrast with Claimant’s speculative demands and frivolous lawsuit herein)”
6. The matters in dispute between the Claimant and the Defendant/Counter-Claimant (as per the averments contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of Claimant’s Amended Statement of Claim dated 24th April 2008, the averments contained in paragraphs 3(i) and 3(j) of Defendant’s Defence and Counter-claim dated 11th June , 2008 and the averments contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Defence and Counter-claim dated 25th June 2008, all relating to:
– Company Share Transactions (such as Public Offer of Shares of Manny Bank Plc), Allotment of Shares of Manny Bank Plc, Sale of Shares of Manny Bank Plc, Transfer of Shares or Conversion of Shares of Manny Bank Plc to Share Loan and Repayment thereof, share certificates of Manny Bank Manny Bank Plc, share Bonus Issues and Share Dividends of Manny Bank Plc, Register of Members of Manny Bank Plc, Register of Interests in Shares of Manny Bank Plc. are matters covered by Sections 63, 79, 83, 94, 97, 98, 102, 124, 127, 135, 138, 140, 146, 151, 152 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap. 59 volume 3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 or arising from regulation of the operation of Companies Incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap. 59 Volume 3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, in statutory or constitutional jurisdiction to determine the Claimant’s claim herein against the Defendant/Counter-Claimant by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court Act, 1973 and Section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”
After a consideration of the Preliminary Objection, the learned trial Judge on the 13th day of November, 2008 dismissed same.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed Notice of Appeal on the 27th of November 2008, with two (2) Grounds of Appeal.
The Respondent had indicated his intention to rely on Preliminary Objection, filed on the 7th of December 2011. In his brief of argument filed on the 28th of June 2010, paragraph 3.00 thereof, he argued same.
On the 21st of May 2010, the Appellant filed his Brief of Argument. It is settled by A.C. Tagbo & Co., while the Respondent filed its Brief of Argument on the 28th of June 2010.
In the Appellant’s brief he had formulated two (2) issues for determination. They are at pages 10 – 12 of the Appellant’s brief of argument.
Issue A spans 21/2 pages.
Issue A seems to me to be profusely prolix, argumentative and narrative. It is incomprehensible. This is a travesty of the rules regarding Brief Writing in our adjectival Law.
Same virus applies to Issue B. It is utterly narrative, prolix and argumentative. It is incomprehensible.
The consequence of this is that the Appellant had proffered no issues for determination on their brief of argument. This is because, the two issues i.e. A & B, being utterly narrative, vague, prolix and argumentative are liable to be struck out and same is hereby struck out. Where issues for determination formulated by the Appellant is imprecise and riddled with irrelevant complexities and is incomprehensible; where it is too wide, the Rules of Court demand that this Court jettisons same. LAGGA V. SARHUNA (2008) 16 NWLR Pt. 1114, 427; BRIGGS V. CLORSN (2005) 12 NWLR Pt.938. 59.
The result is that the two Grounds of Appeal stand on their own, with no issues derived therefrom. Ipso facto this lacuna makes the Grounds of Appeal liable to be struck out and indeed are deemed abandoned. It is liable to be ignored. E.B. UKIRI V, GECO-PRAKA LTD. (2010) 16 NWLR Pt 1220, 544 @ 565.
See A.W. (NIG) LTD V. SUPERMARITIME NIG. LTD. (2005) 6 NWLR Pt 922, 563. If no issue is formulated from a Ground, it is deemed abandoned and liable to be struck out. RASHEED OLAIYA V. THE STATE (2010) 2 SCN 163 at 169-170; LABIYI V. ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 NWLR Pt. 258, 139.
But before I take that drastic step, let me reproduce verbatim the Grounds of Appeal.
GROUND (A) “The learned trial Judge in the Court below erred in law, by dismissing the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed on 5th September, 2008: (without discernible recourse to
overwhelmingly sufficient materials before the Court below, upon which the learned trial Judge could have drawn the correct inference therefrom), so as to prevent abuse of process of the Court below, pursuant to Appellant’s main constitutional ground of law, seeking the prayer for the dismissal of Respondent’s claim as a gross abuse of process of the Court below”
GROUND (B) “The learned trial Judge in the Court below erred in law by dismissing the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed on 5th September, 2008 having misconstrued the trite law cited by the Appellant in Appellant’s Written Reply on Points Law (sic) dated 23rd September 2008 contained in the Supreme Court case of:
Chief Ohwoviogor Ikine & Ors. vs. Chief Olori Edjerode & Ors. (2002) F.W.L.R. Part 92 1775 page 1786 Ratio 13 (per Ogundare, J.S.C. paragraphs D – E), particularly the portion which states thus:
“Where pleadings have been filed, the issue of Court’s jurisdiction is best determined from the averments in Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
Where this is not the case, one has to look at the claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons.”
It is apparent on the face of these Grounds that they are vague, narrative and argumentative. They are utterly prolix. The more you read the facts therein, the more you get confused.
Decidedly, Courts that sit on appeal are at liberty to adopt, or even formulate issues, which in their view, would determine the real question in an appeal – ADUKA V. ADEJOH (1994) 5 NWLR Pt 346 at 582; EGWE V. EGWE (2007) 1 NWLR Pt 1014. 71. But where, the Court cannot even comprehend the grouse in the Ground of Appeal, how can it attempt to formulate issues therefrom?
Order 6 Rule 2(2) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 has this to say:
Order 6 Rule 2(2):
“Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated”
Rule 3:
“Any ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall not be permitted, save the general ground that the Judgment is against the weight of the evidence, any ground of appeal or any part thereof which is not permitted under this Rule may be struck out by the Court of its own motion or on application by the Respondent.”
It is apparent that the Appellant has failed woefully to comply with the provision of the law as it is.
This fact alone is enough to dispose of this appeal. An appeal can only be meaningfully entertained if there is a valid Notice of Appeal, encapsulating clear, concise, precise and arguable Grounds of Appeal.
This, unfortunately is not the position in the instant case.
Howbeit there is the need to consider the notice of Preliminary Objection, as reflected in paragraph 3.02 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument.
The grounds for the Preliminary Objection are as follows:
(1) The Notice of Appeal dated 26/11/08 and filed 27/11/08 has two grounds and the grounds are incompetent and defective as well as the issue for determination formulated and argued in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated and filed 21/05/10.
(2) The two grounds of the Notice of Appeal leaves the Respondent in doubt and without adequate information on what the Appellant is complaining about. We refer the court to the case of ZENITH PLASTICS INDUSTRY LTD, VS, SAMOTECH LIMITED (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 315, P. 336 paras B – C,
(3) The grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant is not definitive of the Appellant’s complaints against the trial court’s decision. We refer the Court to the case of EMEKA NWANA VS. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1044) 59, Pg. 82 – 83 paras H-A.
(4) The grounds in the Notice of Appeal is not concise, precise and exact which leaves the court and the Respondent in a position of speculation or conjecture whether the grounds of appeal arise from or relate to the decision of the trial court. We refer the court to the case of COOPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK PLC & ANOR VS. JONAH DAN OKORO EKPERI (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt.493), Pg, 511 paras e-f.
(5) The grounds of Appeal alleges errors in law, it is not enough to merely allege error but the Appellant, must quote the passage in the decision where the error alleged occurred, specify the nature of the error and give full and substantial particulars of the alleged error. The Appellant failed, refused and neglected to quote the passage in the decision where the error was alleged to have occurred, specify the nature of the error and give full and substantial particulars of the alleged error. We refer the court to the cases of FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. ENGR. ADEDEJI OLUFEMI ODUSANWO (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt, 1039) 361 Pg. 375 – 376 paras e-g; 377 paras d-f and CHIEF ENGR. UDOETE VS. ALFRED HEIL & ANOR. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 783) 64 Pg. 86 Paras g – h.
(6) The Appellant’s grounds of Appeal are unrelated to the particulars of error and the particulars of errors are independent complaints distinct and unrelated to the grounds of the Notice of Appeal. Particulars of a ground of appeal are meant to elucidate and advance the complaint in that ground in the Notice of Appeal but the Appellant herein has failed to elucidate and advance the complaints in the grounds of appeal with the particulars. We refer the court to the case of FRANCIS SHANU & ANOR. VS. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC. (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 185 Pg. 216 para B.
(7) The two issues for determination formulated by the Appellant is imprecise and riddled with irrelevant complexities in such a way that the issues are incomprehensible. We refer the Court to the case of ONWUCHEKWA CHUKWU & ANOR VS. THE STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.1052) 430. Pg. 447 paras A.
(8) The Appellant’s two issues for determination formulated is too wide and not fit for deliberation by this court whose duty is to consider in what aspect and manner a lower court has been in error, if at all, As this is done by taking specific issues for analysis and discussion and not by considering an issue which services to encompass or involve every imaginable but unexpressed complaint against a judgment. We refer the Court to the case of FRANCIS SHANU & ANOR. VS. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC. (supra) P.216 paras A, C – E.
(9) We submit that the two grounds of the Notice of Appeal and issues for determination formulated by the Appellant is therefore liable to be struck out.
(10) We therefore urge my lords to strike out the grounds in the Notice of Appeal dated 26/11/08 and filed 27/11/08 and the issues formulated by the Appellant in the Brief of Argument dated and filed 21/05/10.
(11) In the event that my lords do not strike out the grounds in the Notice of Appeal dated 26/11/08 and filed 27/11/08 and the issues formulated in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated and filed 21/05/10, we canvass the issues for determination and argument thereof below.
From records, the Appellants had filed no counter affidavit to the Notice of Preliminary Objection. The facts deposed to therein, are deemed admitted.
It is pertinent to note that the issues raised by the Respondent in arguing the Preliminary Objection, are the same which this Court had observed at a glance, upon perusal of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal.
As earlier observed, the Grounds of Appeal are prolix, argumentative, vague. Even so the issues derived therefrom.
The Grounds of Appeal are not concise, precise and exact. A situation that leaves the Court guessing and conjecturing. Indeed it leaves the Court groping in the dark. See COPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK PLC. & ANOR. VS. JONAH DAN OKORO EKPERI (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt.493, page 511, paragraphs e-f).
I agree with the facts deposed to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Grounds for the Preliminary Objection, that the Appellant failed to stipulate the passage of the decision of the lower court, where the error of law allegedly occurred, also there was failure to specify the nature of the error and full and substantial particulars of the alleged error, citing FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. ENGR. ADEDEJI OLUFEMI ODUSANWO (2007) 9 NWLR Pt.1039, 361 pages 375 – 376 paragraphs e-g; CHIEF ENGR. UDOETE VS. ALFREED HEIL & ANOR. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.783) 64, page 86, paragraphs g-h.
The Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal are unrelated to the particulars of error. Indeed the particulars of error seem to me, independent issues, distinct and far from being related to the Grounds of Appeal.
The prime purpose of particulars of error, is to elucidate on the Grounds of Appeal. See FRANCIS SHANU & ANOR. VS. AFRIBANK NIG. PLC. (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 185 page 216 paragraph b.
In A.G. OF LAGOS STATE V. DOSUMU (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.111) 552 S.C. the Apex Court defined jurisdiction, as the limits imposed on the power of a validly constituted court, to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process, by reference to the subject matter of the issues, or to the persons, between whom the issues are joined, or to the kind of reliefs sought.
But, with respect, this can only be achieved, where the Grounds of Appeal and the issues distilled therefrom are comprehensible and clear. The Court would do nothing in vain.
I must say unreservedly that the Preliminary Objection is fraught with merit.
To consider the Grounds of Appeal and the issues therefore would amount to an exercise in futility and a fortiori an academic exercise. See ONYEMEH VS. EGBUCHULAM (1996) 5 NWLR Pt.448 @ 255; A.G. OF FEDERATION VS. ANPP (2002) 18 NWLR Pt. 851, 182; BOSIE C. VS. KACHALA (2006) 1 NWLR Pt. 962 @ 587. The Notice of Preliminary Objection is hereby upheld.
The result is that the Appeal is grossly devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. The judgment of Honourable Justice O.A. Taiwo (Mrs) of the Lagos State High Court delivered on the 13th day of November 2008 in Suit No. LD/1714/2006, whereby he dismissed the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant is hereby affirmed. Costs in favour of the Respondent assessed at N30,000.00.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned sister RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein that the preliminary objection by the Claimant/Respondent has merit and should be upheld. I have read the ground of appeal as contained in the notice of appeal filed by the appellant. They are copiously set out in the lead judgment. Suffice it to say that the grounds of appeal are argumentative and vague. Even though I generally take a liberal view of such lapses, the grounds as couched in this case has no redeeming features. They cannot even convey precisely the Appellants’ complaints against the judgment of the trial court. I agree with my learned sister that the appeal be dismissed. I abide by the order as to costs.
M. A. DANJUMA J.C.A.: I agree that this interlocutory appeal deserves to fail. The Grounds of appeal contain no particulars of the error in law as asserted, as required by Order 6 Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011.
The provisions of the Rules have been reproduced in the lead Judgment and need no repetition.
The Notice of preliminary objection against same was rightly raised, not withstanding that the Notice itself is more of an admixture of a brief of argument and Notice as filed. A Notice of preliminary objection should be terse and particularizing the grounds or reasons for the objection to the merit or competence of a process. A Notice of preliminary objection is not intended to be the same as a compendium encapsulating the Brief of argument in support thereof. Be that as it may, I agree with the lead Judgment that this appeal has no merit and must be dismissed on account of the incompetence of the notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision in suit No. LD/1714/2006 of 13th November 2008.
The decision is affirmed, therefore, I also subscribe to the order relating to costs as made in the lead Judgment.
Appearances
F.E. Obumse Esq.
Bola AseinFor Appellant
AND
O.T. Opara (Mrs.)
O. Cookey-Gam )Mrs.)For Respondent
