PA PAUL N. UWANDI & 4 ORS v. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, DELTA STATE & 6 ORS
(2019)LCN/12820(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2019
CA/B/149/2008
RATIO
INTERPRETATION: LOCUS STANDI
“Locus Standi simply means the right to be heard in Court or other proceedings or the competence to institute proceedings in a Court of law for redress or assertion of a right enforcement at law. Where a Plaintiff lacks Locus standi, the Court will strike out the action without considering the merits of the case. See ADESANYA VS. PRESIDENT FRN (1981) 5 SC 112 at 148 per Bello JSC.” PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHEN AN ONJECTION TO JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED
“…it is my humble but firm view that an objection that a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter is not an ordinary point of law. It is an issue of jurisdiction. That being the case, rules of Court cannot dictate when it can be raised or even how it should be raised. In ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) P. 76 MOHAMMED (JSC) had this to say at page 115. There is a difference between an objection to jurisdiction and a demurrer. In a demurrer application, there should be a Statement of Claim in place, the facts of which the Applicant would be required to admit before bringing his objection. An objection to the jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any time, even when there are no pleadings filed and party raising such an objection need not bring application under any rule of Court. Thus for this reason, once the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised, the Court, has inherent power to consider the application even if the only process of Court that has been filed is the Writ of Summons and affidavit in support of an interlocutory application.” PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PA PAUL N. UWANDI & 4 ORS
(FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF UMU-OZIM ROYAL FAMILY, UBULU-UKU). – Appellant(s)
AND
THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, DELTA STATE & 6 ORS
(FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF UMU-OBI ROYAL FAMILY, UBULU-UKU). – Respondent(s)
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The Appellants (as Plaintiffs at the trial Court) commenced this action by a Writ of Summons claiming inter alia, that the Umu-Ozims as represented by the Appellants are the king makers and Supreme authority in the Political Constitution in Ubulu-Uku. The Appellants claimed seven (7) reliefs as in reliefs (a) – (g) against the Respondents (as Defendants) see pages 2 to 3 of the Records.
Upon being served with the Writ of Summons, the 3rd -7th Defendants (Respondents herein) filed a Notice of Preliminary objection filed on the 1st of November, 2006. By the said Notice of Preliminary objection, the Respondents challenged the competence of the Suit on the grounds that the lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit by reason of the fact that the Appellants lack the locus standi to institute the action. (See pages 24 to 25 of the Records)
The trial Court took arguments from parties and in a considered Ruling delivered on the 31st of July, 2007, S.A. Ehiwario, J of the Asaba Division of the Delta State High Court in Suit No.: A/212/2006/M2 upheld the preliminary objection raised by the 3rd -7th Defendants (Respondents herein) and struck out the Claims of the Appellants (as Plaintiffs) at the lower Court and awarded N100,000.00 in favour of the Respondents.
Aggrieved by that Ruling, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on the 7th of August, 2007. The Appellants later amended their Notice of Appeal. The amended Notice of Appeal was filed on the 19th April, 2018.
This Appeal revolves on the said Ruling of the lower Court, delivered on the 31st of July, 2007.
Learned counsel for Appellants A. N. Maidoh Esq. distilled three issues for determination as follows:
1. Was the learned trial Judge right in determining the issue of Locus Standi at that stage of proceedings when pleadings have not been filed and settled.
2. Was the learned trial Judge right to hold that this matter/Suit was not justifiable pursuant to Section 22 of Traditional Rulers Council and Chief Law, 1999 of Delta State, when there was no evidence placed before him to ascertain, whether the said matter/action was not determined by the prescribed authority as envisaged by the aforementioned law.
3. Whether the Notice of preliminary objection filed by the 3rd – 7th Respondents offended ORDER 24 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1988 of former Bendel State, now applicable to Delta State, which abolished proceedings in lieu of Demurrer.?
Learned counsel for the 1st – 2nd Respondents John Okoriko Esq. adopted the three issues as distilled by learned counsel for the Appellants. Learned Counsel for the 3rd – 6th Respondents A.C. Oluiji Esq. also adopted the three issues formulated by counsel for the Appellants.
In determining this appeal, I will make use of the issues as formulated by learned counsel for the Appellants and adopted by counsel for the Respondents.
Taking the issues he formulated, learned counsel for the Appellants contented that it is the Statement of Claim that determines a Plaintiff?s Locus Standi to sue. That the Plaintiffs in the Statement of Claim disclosed sufficient interest or threat or injury to enable them invoke the judicial process. Counsel also argued that the issue of Locus Standi or jurisdiction being a point of law cannot be properly raised under Order 23 Rule 4 as was done in this case. He posited that the Appellants (Plaintiffs) at the lower Court have demonstrated by pleading in paragraphs 2 – 14 of their Statement of Claim that they have Locus Standi to sue. That it was left to the Defendants (Respondents herein) to challenge them by filing their own pleadings in their statement of defence and joining issues with him. He therefore submitted that it was erroneous for the learned trial Judge to determine the issue of Locus Standi when pleadings have not been exchanged.
On the second issue, counsel submitted further that since pleadings have not been filed and exchanged in this matter, there was no evidence adduced before the lower Court to enable it ascertain whether or not the matter was not determined by the appropriate authority as envisaged by the said Section 22 of the Traditional Rulers Council and Chief Law, 1999 of Delta State.
On issue No. 3, counsel also contended citing Order 24 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1988 of former Bendel State, applicable to Delta State which abolished proceedings in lieu of Demurrer.
Reacting to the foregoing, learned counsel for the 1st & 2nd
Respondents referred to the Writ of Summons, the motion on Notice and the supporting affidavit and contended that the learned trial Judge was right in determining the issue of Locus Standi at that initial stage of proceedings when pleadings have not been filed and settled by parties.
Counsel cited Section 22 of the Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Law, 1999, of Delta State and argued that the learned trial Judge was right to hold that this Suit was not justifiable. Also citing Order 24 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988 of former Bendel State (now applicable to Delta State) and submitted that the Notice of preliminary objection filed by the 3rd – 7th Respondents does not offend the said Rules.
Learned counsel for the 3rd to 6th Respondents argued along the same line.
The main issue in this Appeal is whether or not the Appellants have Locus standi to institute this action at the lower Court.
Locus Standi simply means the right to be heard in Court or other proceedings or the competence to institute proceedings in a Court of law for redress or assertion of a right enforcement at law. Where a Plaintiff lacks Locus standi, the Court will strike out the action without considering the merits of the case. See ADESANYA VS. PRESIDENT FRN (1981) 5 SC 112 at 148 per Bello JSC.
Looking at paragraphs 13 ? 16 of the affidavit in support of the interlocutory Application, the Appellants have by the supporting affidavit to an interlocutory application and the endorsement on the Writ of Summons disclosed clearly the nature of interest they have in this matter. (See page 11 of the record of Appeal)
Looking at the said paragraphs, the Appellants are saying that they are Kingmakers and that the Court should declare so. The Appellants are also saying that they belong to the Royal family where the 3rd Respondent also belongs.
Curiously, the Appellants are not praying the trial Court to declare that it is the turn of their family to be installed as the Obi of Ubulu-Uku.
It should be noted that the issue is not whether the Appellants have any interest in the subject matter in dispute. It is whether they have sufficient interest at stake in the matter, sufficient to remove them from the category of general type of interest that any member of the public could have.
The Appellants have not shown in any way the type of injury they would suffer individually and or collectively. None of the Appellants has asserted that he is an aspirant to the throne subject matter of dispute.
On the second issue, Section 22(3) of the Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Edict, 1998 of Delta State provides that:-
‘Where there is a dispute as to whether a Traditional Chieftaincy title has been conferred on a person in accordance with customary law or as to whether a Traditional Chieftaincy Title has been conferred on the right person, the committee may first determine the issue.’
Section 22(5) of the same Edict creates avenue for appeal by an aggrieved party where he is dissatisfied in OWOSENI VS. FALOYE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT 946) P. 719 it was held that:
‘Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for the determination of an action, be it an administrative matter, Chieftaincy matter or a matter for taxation, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in that law before going to Court.’
Thus the Appellants failure to exhaust the conditions precedent under the said Section 22 of the Traditional Rulers Council and Chiefs Law before instituting this action is bound to result in serious consequences. See OWOSENI VS. FALOYE (Supra)
On issue No. 3, it is my humble but firm view that an objection that a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter is not an ordinary point of law. It is an issue of jurisdiction. That being the case, rules of Court cannot dictate when it can be raised or even how it should be raised.
In ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) P. 76 MOHAMMED (JSC) had this to say at page 115.
There is a difference between an objection to jurisdiction and a demurrer. In a demurrer application, there should be a Statement of Claim in place, the facts of which the Applicant would be required to admit before bringing his objection. An objection to the jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any time, even when there are no pleadings filed and party raising such an objection need not bring application under any rule of Court. Thus for this reason, once the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised, the Court, has inherent power to consider the application even if the only process of Court that has been filed is the Writ of Summons and affidavit in support of an interlocutory application.
The fact that no Statement of defense was filed at that stage would not have prevented the trial Court from determining the objection.
From the above view of MOHAMMED JSC, it is clear that a defendant at the trial Court who conceives that he has a good ground of law that, if raised, will determine the action in limine is at liberty to raise such ground of law. The Respondents (as Applicants) at the trial Court shouldn?t have waited until they filed their Statement of Defense before filing their objection.
In the premise, the three issues are resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents. This Appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed.
The Ruling of S. A. EHIWARIO, J of the Asaba Division of the Delta State High Court in Suit No. A/212/2006/M2, delivered on the 31st of July, 2007 is hereby affirmed.
I award N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand) Naira as costs against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading the just delivered Judgment of my learned brother, CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D), JCA
I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached. I so hold that the three issues be resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents. I too agree that this appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed.
The ruling of S.A. EHIWARIO, J, of the Asaba Division of the Delta State High Court in Suit No. A/212/2006/M2 delivered on the 31 of July, 2007 hereby affirmed. I abide by the order as to cost in the lead judgment.
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, J.C.A.
My learned brother has comprehensively dealt with the live issue in this appeal. I completely agree with the reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother.
For all the reasons advanced in the leading judgment, I also dismiss this appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court.
Appearances:
M. M. NnamdiFor Appellant(s)
J. Okoriko with him, Henry Obafemi
for 1st and 2nd Respondents.For Respondent(s)
