ILOZUMBA & ANOR v. INC. TRUSTEES OF O.P.U & ORS (2020)

ILOZUMBA & ANOR v. INC. TRUSTEES OF O.P.U & ORS

(2020)LCN/14542(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, August 03, 2020

CA/AW/334/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal

Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. ICHIE INNOCENT ILOZUMBA 2. MR. JOSEPH ANOFOECHI APPELANT(S)

And

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF OBELEDU PROGRESS UNION (O.P.U) 2. ARCH. POLYCARP ANOCHIE (President-General, Obeledu Progress Union) 3. DR. CHIGOZIE ANARADO(Secretary-General, Obeledu Progress Union) (2nd And 3rd Defendants Are Sued For Themselves And On Behalf Of Other Members Of The Central Executive Committee Of O.P.U.) 4. H.R.H IGWE AUGUSTINE CHIJIOKE ORAGWAM 5. CHIEF ROBERT ANARADO(Palace Secretary Igwe-In-Council Of Obeledu) (And On Behalf Of Other Members Of Igwe-In-Council Of Obeledu) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the limit 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. See ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA) v. ANYANWU (2014) 7NWLR (pt. 1407) 541 at 582; FIDELITY BANK PLC v. OGIRI (2013) 2 NWLR (pt.13337) 182 at 200. PER SANGA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT JURISDICTION OF EVERY COURT IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW ESTABLISHING THAT COURT AND DETERMINED BY THE CLAIMS BEFORE THE COURT

It is trite law, as I stated above, that the jurisdiction of every Court is prescribed by the law establishing that Court and determined by the claims before the Court. The apex Court held so in BARRISTER ISMAEEL AHMED v. ALHAJI NASIRU AHMED & Ors (2013) LPELR-21143; per CHUKWUMA – ENEH, JSC, that:
“Before going any further to the discourse of this question of jurisdiction, I must reiterate that it is settled law that jurisdiction is the power from which Courts do derive their authority to entertain matters placed before them for adjudication. It is a matter that is statutorily based; usually jurisdiction of Courts of record is as provided in the Constitution or Act of the National Assembly and the jurisdiction of Courts can only be removed or whittled down by express statutory provisions. To ascertain the jurisdiction of Courts the fact of the case have to be examined and this leads to scrutinizing the pleadings filed by the parties, particularly by the plaintiff in this case.”PER SANGA, J.C.A.

BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants as plaintiffs instituted this suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/169/2016 against the Respondents as Defendants before the Federal High Court Awka Judicial Division, I.N. OWEIBOJ, presiding via a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, seeking for the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the plaintiff’s were duly nominated for the award of Chieftaincy titles in Obeledu Congress as required by Obeledu Constitution.
b. A declaration that the plaintiffs having been duly nominated for the award of Chieftaincy titles of Obeledu and the nominations having received the approval of Obeledu Congress, the rights of the plaintiffs to be conferred with the said Chieftaincy titles remain valid and subsisting under Obeledu Constitution.
c. A declaration that the approval given by Obeledu Congress for the award of Chieftaincy titles to the plaintiffs cannot be varied, annulled or reversed by the defendants.
d. A declaration that the failure of the 4th defendant to celebrate his 2012 mass return year Ofala festival without the approval of Obeledu Congress, which resulted in the

non-conferment of chieftaincy titles on the plaintiff’s at the already scheduled 2012 Ofala festival celebration constitutes an infringement of the Constitution of Obeledu.
e. A declaration that the subsequent removal of the plaintiffs’ names by the defendants from the list of persons entitled, scheduled and proposed to be conferred with Chieftaincy titles of Obeledu by the defendants (through the 4th defendant) on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date, is ultra vires the powers of the defendants and constitute a gross violation of the Constitution of Obeledu town.
f. An order restoring the names of the plaintiffs on the list of persons approved for the conferment of Obeledu chieftaincy title and including the plaintiffs among the persons to be conferred with Obeledu chieftaincy titles at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendant schedule to take place 31st December, 2016 or on any other date.
g. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, either by themselves or through their agents, from conferring chieftaincy titles of Obeledu on any persons without including the plaintiffs among the recipients of the chieftaincy

titles, at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendant schedule to hold on 31st December, 2016 or any other date.

Both the writ and the statement of claim were dated 21/11/2016 and filed on 22/11/2016. (pages 1 to 17 of the record of appeal).

The Appellants also filed a motion on notice on 29/11/2016 seeking for the following relief against the Respondents:
An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, either by themselves or through their agents, from conferring chieftaincy titles of Obeledu on any persons without including the plaintiffs/applicants among the recipients of the chieftaincy titles, at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendant scheduled to hold on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date pending the determination of the substantive suit by this Honourable Court.

The grounds upon which the application was based are:
a. The plaintiffs/applicants are among five persons validly and constitutionally nominated and approved by Obeledu Progress Union Congress for conferment of Obeledu Chieftaincy titles.
b. In gross violation of the Constitution of Obeledu town, the

defendants/respondents arbitrarily and maliciously removed the names of the plaintiffs/applicants from the list of persons earlier nominated and approved for conferment of Obeledu chieftaincy.
c. The plaintiffs/applicants have instituted this suit praying the Court among other reliefs, to restrain the defendants/respondents, either by themselves or through their agents, from conferring chieftaincy titles of Obeledu on any persons without including the plaintiffs/applicants among the recipients of the chieftaincy titles, at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendant scheduled to hold 31st December, 2016 or on any other date.
d. Despite the pendency of this suit, the defendants/respondents are hell-bent and determined to confer Obeledu chieftaincy titles on some persons on 31st December, 2016 without including the plaintiffs/applicants among the recipients of the chieftaincy titles.
e. The decision of the Honourable Court in the substantive action will be nugatory if the defendants/respondents are not restrained from conferring Obeledu chieftaincy titles on any persons without including the plaintiffs/applicants among the recipients of the

chieftaincy titles.
f. There is need for the Honourable Court to grant this application pending the determination of the substantive suit so that the eventual decision of the Court in the substantive suit will not be nugatory.

On 2nd December, 2016, the lower Court also issued an ex-parte order as follows:
“AN ORDER be and is hereby made restraining the defendants/respondents, either by themselves or through their agents, from conferring chieftaincy titles of Obeledu on any persons without including the plaintiffs/applicants among the recipients of the chieftaincy titles at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th Defendant scheduled to hold on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.
Matter adjourned to 16th day of December, 2016.”
(pages 282 – 284 of the record of appeal)

Upon being served with the appellants’ originating processes; the motion for interlocutory injunction and the drawn up order of interim injunction issued by the learned trial Judge, the respondents filed a memorandum of conditional appearance accompanied by a motion

on notice dated 6th December, 2016, filed on 7th December, 2016 seeking for the following reliefs:
1. An order striking out this suit for lack of jurisdiction.
2. An order setting aside the exparte order of injunction made by this Honourable Court on the 2nd day of December, 2016.

The grounds upon which the application was based are as follows:
1. Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is provided for under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Amended.
2. The totality of the plaintiffs’ claim as shown in their writ of summons and statement of claim does not fall within any cause of action, subject matter or party over whom the Federal High Court can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over.
3. The Court is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ suit.
4. Consequently, the exparte order of injunction made by this Honourable Court was made without jurisdiction.
5. No motion on notice seeking injunctive reliefs was filed nor served on the defendants before the grant of the ex parte order of injunction.
6. That the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The suit is liable to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.A 10 paragraphs affidavit in support and a written address accompanied the application. (pages 165 – 185 of the record of appeal). The Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal on 15/12/2016 against the order for interim injunction issued by the lower Court on 2/12/2016. They also filed a counter-affidavit and a written address opposing the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the Appellants. The motion was dated 12/12/2016 and filed on 15/12/2016. (pages 211 – 217 of the Records).
The Appellants filed a counter affidavit opposing the Respondent’s motion challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court on 16/12/2016 together with a written address. (pages 272 to 278 of the record of appeal). The Respondents responded by filing further affidavit and a reply on points of law dated 17/12/2016. They also filed a statement of defence on 19/12/2016. (pages 285 – 310 of the record of appeal).

Then the Registrar of the lower Court in furtherance of the Order issued on 2/12/16 by the learned trial Judge, issued a Notice of consequence of disobedience to the

Order of interim injunction. He served the Respondents with Form 48 dated 20/12/2016. When the Respondents ignored the Form 48 the appellants filed Form 49 and served the Respondents to show cause why an order of committal should not be made against them. (pages 262 – 265 of the records). However on 9th February, 2017, the learned trial Judge, in a turn of events, delivered his Ruling in respect to the Respondents motion challenging his jurisdiction filed on 7th December, 2016 wherein he held thus:
“It is a fact that the award of chieftaincy titles on deserving indigenes of Obeledu Community is provided for in the Constitution of the 1st defendant. I have considered the provisions of the said Constitution with reference to the award of chieftaincy titles and I am of the humble view that the award or non award of the titles has nothing to do with the running, management or control of the Obeledu Progress Union. Secondly, the claims of the plaintiffs do not touch on the management or control of the Obeledu Progress Union. This being the case, this matter does not come within the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under

Section 251(1) (e) of the Constitution.
The second ground is whether there is a reasonable cause of action disclosed. Considering the position I have taken earlier, I do not think it necessary for me to go into that issue.
Having held that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the ex parte order of injunction granted the plaintiffs on 2/12/2016 is hereby set aside.
Pursuant to Section 22 of the Federal High Court Act. I hereby transfer this matter to the Anambra State High Court. No order as to cost.” (the entire Ruling is at pages 405 – 414 of the record of appeal).

This Ruling aggrieved the plaintiffs so they filed a notice of appeal containing five (5) grounds of appeal on 11th April, 2017. (pages 415 – 422 of the record of appeal). The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 13th June, 2017. The appellants’ brief was prepared by P.A. Afuba Esq. It was filed on 21st July, 2017. Learned counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows:
a. Whether the trial Court rightly declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently transferred same to the High Court of Anambra

State? Grounds 6,2 and 5).
b. Whether the trial Court rightly set aside its order of interim injunction and failed to pronounce on the committal proceeding the appellants’ commenced in this suit against the respondents for disobeying the trial Court’s order. (Grounds 3 and 4).

The respondents’ brief was filed on 6th October, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on 8th June, 2020. In their brief of argument, the respondents adopts the issues formulated by the appellants. The Appellants then filed a Reply brief on 5th June, 2020 but deemed as properly filed and served on……

ISSUE 1 is:
Whether the trial Court rightly declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently transferred same to the High Court of Anambra State?

In his submission while arguing this issue learned counsel to the Appellants stated the trite position of the law that to determine the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain a matter, it is the plaintiff’s claim that is to be considered. Cited ONUORAH v. K.R.P.C. LTD. (2005) 6 NWLR (pt. 921) 393 at 408 and 7-UP BOTTLING Co. LTD v. ABIOLA and SONS (2001) 13

NWLR (pt. 730) 469 at 495. Learned counsel quoted the holding by the learned trial Judge at pages 412 – 413 of the record of appeal and conceded that although he rightly found that the 1st respondent is a body corporate having been registered under part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004 (CAMA), however, contrary to the lower Court’s holding, it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That the dispute in this matter as disclosed by the appellants’ claim related to the regulation, running, management or control of the Constitution of the 1st Appellant. Learned counsel listed what he deem to be the gravamen of the appellants’ claims before the trial Court.

Learned counsel to the appellants submitted further that the nature of their claim as shown in their pleadings is based on the alleged violation of the provisions of the 1st respondent’s Constitution by the 2nd and 3rd respondents while managing and controlling the affairs of the 1st respondent. That the fact that the constitutional powers said to have been violated by the 2nd to 5th respondents relates to the conferment of chieftaincy titles does not make any

difference. That it is akin to where the directors of a company violate the provisions of the Articles of Association of the company. Learned counsel to the appellants submitted, unequivocally, that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Constitution of the 1st respondent was indeed violated by the 2nd to 5th respondents while performing their duties of running, operating or managing the affairs of the 1st respondent, which the instant case is founded upon, the 1st Respondent being an incorporated trustee. Learned counsel quoted Section 251(1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Learned counsel also cited and quoted the decision of this Court in AGBOROKO & ANOR v. THE DIVINE CHURCH OF GOD & ORS. (2013) LPELR – 20884 (CA). He submitted further that the instant suit does not relate to chieftaincy dispute or the routine business of the 1st respondent which he concede falls within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. That having shown that the trial Court has jurisdiction, then the order transferring the suit to the State High Court is not proper as it ought to have heard and determine the

matter on its merit. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.

In his submission on this issue, learned counsel to the respondents submitted that the trite position of the law is that jurisdiction is fundamental to the determination of any issue before the Court. That a Court can only embark upon determination of a case where the issues placed before the Court are issues over which it can exercise jurisdiction. Cited ALIMS (NIG) LTD v. UBA (2013) NWLR (pt.1351) 613 where that the apex Court held thus:
“It is now clear that the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold one which the Court can take at any stage of the proceedings; even before the apex Court for the first time. It can be raised by the parties or by the Court suo motu.”

Learned counsel submitted further that the jurisdiction of every Court is prescribed by the law establishing that Court and determined by the claims before the Court. Cited the authority ofGBAGBARIGHA v. TORUEMI (2013) 31 WRN 35; AND AHMED v. AHMED (2013) 41 WRN 1 at 44.

On the argument by the Appellants’ counsel that since the 1st Respondent is an incorporated entity

and the issue in dispute is one provided for in the Constitution of the 1st Respondent, the lower Court was wrong in declining jurisdiction, learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that the provisions of Section 251 (1) (supra) do not throw it at large for the Federal High Court to entertain matters no matter how peripherally touching on the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. He quoted the provisions of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended). He also made a pertinent point that in NKWOCHA v. GOVERNOR OF ANAMBRA STATE (1984) 1 All NLR 342 it was held that where a limited liability company is involve in a land deal, the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction. Also cited:Executive Governor of Kwara State Ors v. Alhaji Mohammed Lawal (2007) 13 NWLR (pt. 1051) 347 at 373 – 374.

Learned counsel in his submission cited and quoted the authority of Babington-Ashaye v.E.M.G. Ent. (Nig) LTD. (2011) 10 NWLR (pt. 1256) 479 at 521-522 where the Court held inter alia, that:
“The simple fact that a company or body is registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act does not qualify every action

brought by or against it as matters arising from the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act as contemplated by the provisions of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 constitution…”

Learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that the Federal High Court has limited and special jurisdiction only over the causes and matters that falls within the matters enumerated under Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. That this appeal is not on the interpretation of the provisions of Companies and Allied Matters Act or on the regulation of the operation of the 1st Defendant, neither is it on the management and control of the 1st Defendant, thus the learned trial Judge was right to decline jurisdiction.

Learned counsel urged this Court to uphold the holding by the learned trial Judge and to resolve this issue in favour of his clients.

In their Reply brief, learned counsel urged the Court to strike out paragraphs 4.11 to 4.12 of the Respondent’s brief. That this is because the lower Court failed to make a pronouncement on the issue that the appellants’ claim is a claim for mere title of honour,

privilege and dignity therefore they cannot validly raise that issue at the appellate stage. That since the respondents failed to cross appeal or file a Respondents’ Notice on that aspect which was not pronounced upon by the learned trial Judge then all submissions in respect of that point are incompetent and thus liable to be struck out. Learned counsel made similar submission in respect to the assertion by the learned counsel to the respondents at paragraphs 4. 13 of their brief of argument that the 1st and 4th Respondents are agents of Anambra State under the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy matters. That that issue was also not pronounced upon by the lower Court neither was it made an issue by the appellants, so the respondents cannot raise it at this appellate stage. That the Court should discountenance the submission by the respondent in that respect since they did not file a cross appeal or a Respondents’ Notice. Learned counsel urged the Court to strike out paragraph 4.13 in the respondents’ brief for being incompetent. That the 1st and 4th Respondents are not agents of Anambra State Government.
<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

FINDING ON ISSUE 1:
ISSUE 1 is:
Whether the trial Court rightly declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently transferred same to the high Court of Anambra State?

At the outset, it is obvious that this issue as couched by the Appellants touched on the jurisdiction of the lower Court to hear and determine the Appellants’ claims. It is trite law that jurisdiction is the limit 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. See ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA) v. ANYANWU (2014) 7NWLR (pt. 1407) 541 at 582; FIDELITY BANK PLC v. OGIRI (2013) 2 NWLR (pt.13337) 182 at 200.

To answer the question raised in this issue, I have carefully considered the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs at pages 15 to 16 of the record of appeal. For emphasis, I hereby quote the said reliefs verbatim:
a. A declaration that the plaintiffs were duly nominated for the award of chieftaincy titles in Obeledu and that the

nomination was subsequently approved by Obeledu Congress as required by the Obeledu Constitution.
b. A declaration that the plaintiffs having been duly nominated for the award of chieftaincy titles of Obeledu and the nomination having received the approval of Obeledu Congress, the rights, of the plaintiffs to be conferred with the said chieftaincy titles remains valid and subsisting under Obeledu Constitution.
c. A declaration that the approval given by Obeledu Congress for the award of chieftaincy titles to the plaintiffs cannot be varied, annulled or reversed by the defendants.
d. A declaration that the failure of the 4th defendants to celebrate his 2012 mass return year Ofala festival without the approval of Obeledu Congress, which resulted in the non-conferment of chieftaincy title on the plaintiffs at the already scheduled 2012 Ofala festival celebration constitutes an infringement of the Constitution of obeledu.
e. A declaration that the subsequent removal of the plaintiffs’ names by the defendants from the list of persons entitled, scheduled and proposed to be conferred with chieftaincy titles of Obeledu by the defendants

(through the 4th defendant) on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date, is ultra vires the powers of the defendants and constitutes a gross violation of the constitution of Obeledu town.
f. An order restoring the names of the plaintiffs on the list of persons approved for the conferment of the Obeledu chieftaincy titles and including the plaintiffs among the persons to be conferred with Obeledu chieftaincy titles at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendant scheduled to take place on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date.
g. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, either by themselves or through their agents, from conferring chieftaincy titles of Obeledu on any persons without including the plaintiffs among the recipients of the chieftaincy titles, at the next Ofala ceremony of the 4th defendants scheduled to hold on 31st December, 2016 or on any other date.
I also considered the provision of Section 251 (1) (e) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) which provides thus:
“251-(1) 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 Act or any other enactments replacing the Act or regulating the operation of Companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.”
Upon considering the reliefs sought by the appellants vis-a-vis the provision of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution, the question that comes to the fore is: Did the Federal High Court posses the vires to hear and determine these reliefs?
It is trite law, as I stated above, that the jurisdiction of every Court is prescribed by the law establishing that Court and determined by the claims before the Court. The apex Court held so in BARRISTER ISMAEEL AHMED v. ALHAJI NASIRU AHMED & Ors (2013) LPELR-21143; per CHUKWUMA – ENEH, JSC, that:
“Before going any further to the discourse of this question of jurisdiction, I must reiterate that it is settled law that jurisdiction is the power from which Courts do derive their authority to

entertain matters placed before them for adjudication. It is a matter that is statutorily based; usually jurisdiction of Courts of record is as provided in the Constitution or Act of the National Assembly and the jurisdiction of Courts can only be removed or whittled down by express statutory provisions. To ascertain the jurisdiction of Courts the fact of the case have to be examined and this leads to scrutinizing the pleadings filed by the parties, particularly by the plaintiff in this case.”
I have considered the pleading by the Appellants vis-a-vis the provision of Section 251(1) (e) of the Constitution, I also considered the submission by learned counsel to the appellants in their brief of argument wherein they argued, inter alia that:
e. “The appellants’ case hinges on the fact that the said wrongful exclusion of their names is a violation by the 2nd to 5th respondents of the Constitution of the 1st respondent in the course of their management, running and operation of the 1st respondent.”
f. The reliefs (a), (b), (c) and (e) claimed by the appellants in this suit borders on the violations of the Constitution of the 1st

respondent by the 2nd to 5th respondents in excluding the appellants’ names from the list of 2016 chieftaincy title awardees, despite the valid and subsisting nomination of the appellants for the award.”
Learned counsel to the appellants argued that the lower Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Constitution of the 1st respondent was violated by the 2nd to 5th respondents in the course of running, operating or managing the affairs of the 1st respondent which is the foundation of this suit.
It is my humble view that considering the claim by the appellants vis-a-vis Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 constitution (supra) I beg to differ from the opinion expressed by the learned counsel to the appellants above. It is not enough for the appellants to submit that one of the parties (1st Respondent) was registered or incorporated under CAMA or their claim deals with the Constitution of the said 1st Respondent therefore the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The law is trite that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit emanating from a Company only if the reliefs or claim

bothers on the interpretation of the CAMA or on the operation of or regulation of a company or incorporated body or on the control and/or management of an incorporated body or company. I have carefully perused the reliefs sought by the appellants and it is my finding that none of them touches on the provisions of the CAMA or on the operation or regulation of a company or the control and management of a company. Rather the appellants’ reliefs sought to compel the Incorporated Trustees of a community (Obeledu Progress Union) registered under CAMA along with other members of the community to confer chieftaincy titles on them and also to prevent the 2nd to 5th Respondents from conferring chieftaincy titles on other members of the community to the exclusion of the said Appellants. For emphasis I repeat that the reliefs claimed by the Appellants in no way sought for the interpretation of the CAMA or the operation, management, regulation and/or control of any company, or even of the 1st Respondent or its trustees. Therefore, the submission by learned counsel to the appellants in that respect is a clear misconception of the meaning and purport of

Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution, I hereby discountenance same. In APOSTLE O.N. GODWIN & Ors v. ELDER F.U. OKWEY & Ors (2010) LPELR – 1326 (SC) the apex Court as per ONNOGHEN, JSC (as he then was) held as follows:
“It is clear from the provision of Section 230 (1) (e) of Decree 107 of 1993 supra that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in actions concerning legislations including subsidiary legislations, and common law principles regulating companies or operation of companies such as removal or change of Registered Trustees, alteration of share holdings, winding up or dissolution of companies/associations which are matters relating to regulation of the operations of companies under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.”
It should be noted that Section 230 (1) (e) of the Decree 107 of 1993 is in pari materia with Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended). In CHIEF KENNETH GBAGI & ANOR v. CHIEF T.J. ONOMIGBO OKPOKO (2013) LPELR-20167 (CA) this Court, per BAGE, JCA (as he then was) held, while pronouncing on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court that:

“It is thus clear from the interpretation of the apex Court to those provisions, that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in civil causes and matters arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act would include actions involving regulating, running or management or control of companies. Thus, an action could be maintained and entertained by the Federal High Court affecting formation or winding up of a company, memorandum and articles of association; share and shareholding; appointment, removal or change or alteration of directors…… It is very clear that, the Supreme Court is referring to the operations of a Companies and Allied Matters Acts… It stated that where the dispute does not involve the control or administration of company and deals with ordinary routine business of a company, a State High Court and not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matters.”
I agree, in toto with the decision by the apex Court that where a limited liability company is involved in a land deal, the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction. See CHIEF R.O NKWOCHA v. GOVERNOR OF ANAMBRA STATE & ORS

(1984) LPELR – 2052(SC). Before I conclude my finding on this issue, I will have to also quote and rely on the Supreme Court authority cited by learned counsel to the Respondents of BABINGTON ASHAYE v. E.M.G. ENTERPRISES (NIG) LTD. (2011) 10 NWLR (pt.1256) 479 at 522 where the Court held while pronouncing on the provision of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) as follows:
“The implication of the provisions of Section 251 (1) (e) is that in an action involving regulating, running, management or control of companies, the Federal High Court would be vested with jurisdiction. But where the action involves the control or administration of a company and deals with the ordinary routine business of a company, a State High Court and not a Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter.
The simple fact that a company or body is registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act does not qualify every action brought by or against it as matters arising from the operation of Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing the Act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated

under the Companies and Allied Matters Acts as contemplated by the provisions of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution…”
It is my finding on this issue that the learned trial Judge was on firma terra when he held at page 413 of the record of appeal that:
“I have considered the provisions of the said Constitution with reference to the award of chieftaincy title and I am of the humble view that the award or non award of the titles has nothing to do with the running, management or control of the Obeledu Progress Union. Secondly, the claims of the plaintiffs do not touch on the management or control of the Obeledu Progress Union. This being the case, this matter does not come within the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) (e) of the constitution.”
Therefore I answer this issue in the positive and hold that the trial Court is right when it declined jurisdiction to entertain this suit and consequently transferred same to the High Court of Anambra State.

Issue 2 formulated by learned counsel to the Appellants is:
“Whether the trial Court rightly set aside its order of

interim injunction and failed to pronounce on the committal proceedings the appellants’ commenced in this suit against the respondents for disobeying the trial Court’s order.”

I have carefully considered the submission by learned counsel to the Appellants on this issue and the plethora of authorities cited, quoted and relied upon. I also considered the submission by the Appellants’ counsel that the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion for committal proceedings it earlier issued. That it ought to have made pronouncement on same or give directions as to the future course of its proceedings.

I have also considered the submission by learned counsel to the respondents on the issue that since jurisdiction is the live-wire of a suit and if a Court heard a suit when it has no jurisdiction, then the same Court has the power to set aside all orders it made in the said suit. Learned counsel also cited, in support of his submission, several judicial authorities.

FINDING ON ISSUE 2:
Upon considering the submissions by learned counsel on this issue, it is my holding that since this Court upheld the holding by the lower

Court that it lack the jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit then it follows that it also lacks the jurisdiction to make any order in the suit. It is trite law that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, then the entire proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted, based on the fact that jurisdiction is the live-wire of a suit and any case decided by a Court without jurisdiction becomes a nullity no matter how well conducted. See ABUJA MUNICIPAL AREA COUNCIL v. C.N OKOLI TRANSPORT Co. LTD. (2009) LPELR –3579 (CA); A.G. LAGOS STATE v. DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 555 at 509.
The lower Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over this suit and it rightly to held that:
“Having held that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the ex parte order of injunction granted the plaintiffs on 2/12/2016 is hereby sets side.”
It is therefore my holding that having set aside its exparte order of injunction based upon which the committal proceedings were commenced by issuing form 48, the said learned trial Judge was right in not delving into the committal proceeding since the order

he issued was without jurisdiction. I also resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.

It is my judgment therefore that this appeal lacks merits. It is hereby dismissed. The Ruling by the lower Court issued on 9th February, 2017 dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction and remitting the suit to the Anambra State High Court is hereby upheld. I award cost of N200, 000.00 against the Appellants jointly and severally in favour of the Respondents jointly and severally.

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading the draft of the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother B.G. SANGA, JCA.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion.
I also dismiss this appeal for being unmeritorious.

The Ruling of the Federal High Court Awka division in Suit FHC/AWK/CS/169/2016 delivered the 9th of February, 2017 dismissing this suit for want of jurisdiction and remitting the Suit back to the Anambra State High Court is hereby upheld. I abide by the order as to costs in the lead judgment.

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

P.A. ATUGBA Esq., with him, J. N MaduechI Esq. For Appellant(s)

C.I.Okafor Esq., with him, R.J. Izeubekhai Esq. For Respondent(s)