UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA v. GRATIA CONSULTS LIMITED & ANOR
(2019)LCN/12943(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 28th day of March, 2019
CA/E/599/2014
RATIO
APPEAL: AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FIRST
It is now well settled that an appellate Court should first consider a preliminary objection raised during an appeal and express its opinion on whether it agrees or not. It is thus fundamental for the Court to consider the issue of jurisdiction first because where a Court takes upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decisions amounts to a nullity.PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHETHER A FRESH ISSUE EXCEPT JURISDICTION CAN BE FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL
I have dutifully considered the ground upon which the preliminary objection is predicated, I have also read with due care all the arguments and submissions canvassed therein. I am of the considered opinion that there is no point over flogging this issue as same has been decided in an army of judicial authorities that where a party seeks to file and argue fresh issue, an issue that was not raised and determined by the trial Court and is being raised for the first time in the appellate Court, he must first seek and obtain leave of Court before filing such issue. Except the point or issue being raised by the Appellant touches on jurisdiction which can be raised at any time, he would not be allowed to, without leave sought and obtained, raise and argue a point not raised or argued at the trial Court. SEE ORGAN & ORS v. NIGERIA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20942(SC), PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C (Pp. 26-27, paras. F-B)PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA – Appellant(s)
AND
1. GRATIA CONSULTS LTD
2. GEOFFREY EZE – Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Enugu Judicial Division, delivered by D.V Agishi J. on the 16th day of June, 2014 dismissing in its entirety the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the matter on the ground that the action is incompetent for being statute barred under the Public Officers Protection Act.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts that lead to the institution of this interlocutory appeal as gleaned from the record was that the Plaintiff now Respondent in this instant appeal filed an action against the Defendant now Appellant on 26th February, 2013 claiming inter alia the sum of N14, 750,000 (Fourteen Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) representing unpaid balance of consultancy fees of the Respondents for services rendered to the Appellant.
The Respondents equally claimed N2, 000,000 representing out of pocket expenses incurred in the course of executing the consultancy.
?The crux of the Respondents claims is that the Respondents entered into a consultancy contract
1
with the Appellant and the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which the Appellant agreed to pay the 1st Respondent 10% of all sums realized by it from one Dr. Mike Adenuga on his pledge to build a stadium for the Appellant in a bid to hosting the Nigerian University Games (NUGA). The 2nd Respondent as can be gleaned from the Records was detailed by the Appellant to assist in ensuring that the said Dr. Adenuga redeemed his pledge to the Appellant. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondents failed in their duties and the said Dr. Adenuga never sponsored the NUGA game as pledged and the University (Appellant) incurred considerable losses and that students of the University demonstrated and this led to the closure of the service station CONOIL PLC, one of the companies owned by Dr. Adenuga and which said service station is located in the premises of the Appellant.
?The Respondents on the other hand alleged that sometimes in 2011, they heard that Dr. Adenuga?s group decided to compensate the Appellant with the sum of N150, 000, 000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira Only) for his failure to redeem his pledge, the said sum
2
which was accepted by the Appellant.
On the 2nd day of April, 2013, the Appellant entered into a conditional appearance and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the suit on the ground that the action was already statute barred by and under the virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004. On the 20th day of April, 2013, the Respondents filed a Written Address opposing the Preliminary Objection and submitted that the subject matter of the suit being a simple contract between the parties does not fall under the purview of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004 and thus, the matter was not barred by statute.
The lower Court on the 16th day of June, 2014 delivered its ruling at page 71 of the records and held that:
?It is my opinion that the action is not statute barred having not been brought within 3 months after accrual. The preliminary objection is accordingly dismissed for lacking in merit.?
The Appellant, naturally aggrieved with the ruling of the Court below, appealed against same vide the Notice of Appeal dated 23rd
3
June, 2014 and filed on 18th November, 2014
The Appellant?s Grounds of Appeal without their Particulars are:
?GROUND ONE?
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law and acted without jurisdiction when he adjudicated on the matter he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.
GROUND TWO
The Honourable Court erred in law when it failed to appreciate that it is an imperative principle of law that trial of a matter by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
GROUND THREE
The Honourable Court erred in law in failing to hold or appreciate that the parties cannot by consent or agreement confer jurisdiction on the Honourable Court; the jurisdiction it does not have ab initio.
The Appellant, in order to prosecute this appeal, on the 30th day of November, 2016 filed an Appellant?s brief of argument dated the 24th day of November, same which was deemed as being properly filed and served on the 5th day of December, 2016. A Reply Brief dated 16th day of May, 2018 and filed on the 23rd day May, 2018 pursuant to an Order of this Honourable Court granted on the 14th day of January,
4
2019 deeming same as being properly filed and served. Both Briefs were settled by C.V EJIKE-UME ESQ., who identified two issues for the determination of this appeal as:
a)Whether the trial Court can try a case without jurisdiction
b)Whether the parties can by consent or acquiescence confer jurisdiction on the Court.
The Respondent on the other hand on the 18th day of January, 2018 filed a Respondent?s Brief dated 17th day of January, 2018 pursuant to an Order of this Honourable Court granted on the 18th day of January, 2018 deeming same as being properly filed and served. The said brief was settled by TOCHUKWU ODO ESQ., who also identified two issues for determination which are:
a)Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit pursuant to Section 251 of the Constitution?
b) Whether the Federal High Court ought to strike out or transfer the suit to the State High Court where it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
APPELLANTS? ISSUE NO.1
On this issue, learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that jurisdiction is the cardinal principle in any judicial proceedings for a trial without jurisdiction however
5
eminent it might be, is a complete exercise in futility and precious waste of judicial time and energy. Counsel submitted equally that before a Court assumes jurisdiction in a matter, it must ensure that the case comes before it initiated by due process of law and upon the fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Counsel referred this Honourable Court to the case of MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR (pt. 4) 587 at P. 595.
Learned counsel argued that the law is settled that for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, the following conditions must co-exist:
i.The parties or a party must be the Federal Government or its agencies;
ii. Subject matter of the litigation must be within the items enumerated under Section 251 (1) 1999 Constitution.
Flowing from the above, counsel submitted that once the parties and subject matter are not within Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution as to confer jurisdiction on a trial Court, it must decline jurisdiction as it cannot adjudicate on the matter. Counsel argued that it is settled law that it is the
6
Statement of Claim that determines the jurisdiction of a Court and submitted that the Respondent at the lower Court asked for three reliefs all bothering on their alleged claim, that the Appellant breached the terms of the contract entered into between the parties.
It is the argument of counsel that the law is now settled that matters that border on simple contracts are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court notwithstanding the fact that one of the parties is an Agency of the Federal Government. Counsel relied on the case of FELIX ONUORAH V KADUNA REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (pt.921) pg. 393 at 405. On a final note, counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
APPELLANT?S ISSUE NO 2
On the issue as to whether parties can by consent confer jurisdiction on a Court, learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that parties cannot consent or acquiescence of failure to object confer jurisdiction on a Court, a jurisdiction it never had ab initio. Counsel submitted further that the lower Court was therefore in error for failing to hold or appreciate that the parties cannot consent or failure to object
7
confer jurisdiction on the Court; the jurisdiction it never had.
It is the contention of counsel that Respondents by their written address challenging the preliminary objection at pages 47-52 of the Records admitted that their suit was a claim based on simple contract between the parties and that the failure of the Appellant to raise the issue at the Court below that the claim of the Respondents was not within the confines of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution did not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on the Lower Court to entertain the matter. Counsel referred this Honourable Court to the case of IDOWU ALASHE & ORS V SANYA OLORI-ILU & ORS (1965) NMLR 66 at pg.71.
It is also argued by counsel that it is trite that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and in for there being no format for raising the issue of jurisdiction. Counsel relied on the case of AKEGBEJO V ATAGA (1998) 1 NWLR (pt. 534) 459 at p.468. On a final note, counsel urged this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
RESPONDENTS? ARGUMENTS:
RESPONDENTS? PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
It is pertinent at this stage, to
8
set the records straight that the Respondents have by way of preliminary objection challenged the competence of this appeal on the grounds that the grounds of appeal do not flow from the live issues in the judgment appealed against.
Learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the parties at the Court below did not canvass the issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit under Section 251 of the Constitution and that the ruling of the Court below does not in any way contain any ratio on the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 of the Constitution. Counsel submitted further that the grounds of appeal do not in any way relate to any decision of the lower Court nor challenge any ratio or decision by the lower Court. Counsel referred this Honourable Court to the case of MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LTD V ETIM (2016) LPELR- 40556 (CA).
Counsel urged this Honourable Court to strike out the notice of appeal for being incompetent on the ground that the Appellant?s grounds of appeal do not flow from the judgment of the lower Court appealed against.
9
Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents, I shall proceed to consider the issues distilled in the Respondents? brief for the determination of this appeal.
RESPONDENTS? ISSUE ONE
On the issue as to whether the lower Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit pursuant to Section 251 of the Constitution, learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that going by the reliefs sought by the Respondents in their statement of claim, the action commenced against the Appellant is for specific performance of the terms of the contract between the parties as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding freely entered into and signed by the parties. Counsel argued that by virtue of Section 251 (p),(s) of the Constitution (together with the proviso thereunder), the Federal High Court has the jurisdictional competence to entertain the suit.
?Flowing from the above, counsel submitted that the University (represented by the Vice-Chancellor) in the course of the administration and the management and control of the Appellant, appointed the Respondents as consultants for the redemption of the pledge made to the Appellant by Dr. Mike
10
Adenuga to build the stadium for the hosting of the NUGA games organized by the Appellant as part of its administration and management functions to also boost the public relations of the Appellant, an agency of the federal government.
Counsel submitted further that the Respondent by the reliefs sought in the suit seek specific performance in law and equity of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the parties.
On a final note, counsel urged this Honourable Court to hold that the Court below has the jurisdiction pursuant to Section 251 (p) (s) of the Constitution to entertain the suit.
RESPONDENTS ISSUE N0.2
On whether the Federal High Court ought to strike out or transfer the suit to the State High Court where it lacks jurisdiction to entertain same, learned counsel to the Respondents argued that going by the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap. F12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the matter ought to be transferred to the Court in which it ought to have been brought. This statutory provision according to learned counsel to the Respondent accords more with substantial justice than with technical
11
justice which the Appellant seeks to pursue.
It is the submission of counsel that the above statutory provision is mandatory and leaves little or no room for the exercise of discretion. Counsel relying on the case of BERNARD AMASIKE V THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION & ANOR. (2010) LPELR-456(SC), argued that the law is that when a statute prescribes a method of performing an act or doing something, then that method and no other must be employed in the performance of that act.
Counsel urged this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
APPELLANT?S REPLY
The learned counsel to the Appellant in its reply to the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents challenging the competence of this appeal submitted that it is a misunderstanding of the law for the Respondents to argue that the Appeal is incompetent on the ground that the Appellant?s grounds of appeal do not flow from the Ruling of the lower Court. Counsel submitted further that the Respondents did not avert their minds to the fact that the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant borders on the issue
12
of jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the action and thus can be raised at any time and in whatever form and even on appeal for the 1st time with or without the leave of Court.
Counsel referred this Honourable Court to the case of ELUGBE V OMOHKAFE (2004) 18 NWLR (pt.905) 319 and argued that the law is settled that if a new point borders on jurisdiction of a Court, a party has the licence of the law to raise it on appeal with or without the leave of Court.
Counsel urged this Honourable Court to hold that the Appellant?s appeal is competent and dismiss the preliminary objection and hear the appeal on its merits.
?In response to the first issue distilled by the Respondents, counsel to the Appellant submitted that the Supreme Court in a myriad of decisions has held that a claim for the recovery of debt arising from a simple contract cannot be entertained by the Federal High Court. Counsel submitted that the position of the Respondents regarding the provision of Section 251 (p) (s) of the Constitution is a misunderstanding of the purport of the provisions and that the Supreme Court has held that a claim for damages for breach of contract or even
13
the alternative claim for damages for negligence which is only collateral to the contract cannot be entertained by the Federal High Court. Counsel referred this Honourable Court to the case of ADELEKAN V ECU ? LINE NV. (2006) 12 NWLR (pt. 993) pp.33.
Counsel urged this Honourable Court to allow the appeal therefore setting aside the Ruling of the Court below and strike out the suit.
With respect to the second issue distilled by learned counsel to the Respondent, the Appellant counsel argued that where a trial Court proceeded with a matter without jurisdiction, the Appellate Court is duty bound to strike out the suit without more. Counsel made heavy reliance on the case of ONUORAH V KADUNA REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (2005) 6 NWLR (pt. 921) 393.
Counsel submitted that the Respondents misconstrued the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 as the Court referred to in the said section is the Federal Court and not the Court of Appeal and it is most inconceivable that the Federal High Court Act 2004 can regulate the Court of Appeal as they are not on the same pedestal, the Court of Appeal being a higher Court.
14
On a final note, counsel submitted that the position of law is that this Court is duty bound to allow the appeal and strike out the suit of the Respondents without more.
RESOLUTION
It is now well settled that an appellate Court should first consider a preliminary objection raised during an appeal and express its opinion on whether it agrees or not. It is thus fundamental for the Court to consider the issue of jurisdiction first because where a Court takes upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decisions amounts to a nullity.
The Respondents have a preliminary objection predicated on the ground that the grounds of appeal do not flow from the live issues in the judgment appealed against and that the ruling of the Court below does not in any way contain any ratio on the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 of the Constitution. I have dutifully considered the ground upon which the preliminary objection is predicated, I have also read with due care all the arguments and submissions canvassed therein. ?I am of the considered opinion that there is no point over
15
flogging this issue as same has been decided in an army of judicial authorities that where a party seeks to file and argue fresh issue, an issue that was not raised and determined by the trial Court and is being raised for the first time in the appellate Court, he must first seek and obtain leave of Court before filing such issue. Except the point or issue being raised by the Appellant touches on jurisdiction which can be raised at any time, he would not be allowed to, without leave sought and obtained, raise and argue a point not raised or argued at the trial Court. SEE ORGAN & ORS v. NIGERIA LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20942(SC), PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C (Pp. 26-27, paras. F-B)
After a close perusal at the grounds upon which this instant appeal is premised, it is crystal clear that grounds have without more challenged the jurisdictional competence of the lower Court to entertain the suit. Although the Appellant from the records never raised the issues upon which this appeal is to be decided at the Court below and has not sought the leave of Court first, had and obtained before the filing of this
16
appeal, however, considering the fact that this instant appeal has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial to entertain the suit, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the Respondents preliminary objection, the grounds of appeal having been brought on jurisdictional issues can be first raised for the first time in this Court in the absence of any leave of Court ordering same.
The Respondents preliminary objection is hereby discountenanced and I shall however proceed to determine this appeal on its merits.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
After considering all the issues submitted by the Appellant and the Respondents, I consider the following issue as apt and germane in the determination of this appeal:
?Whether the Court below has the jurisdictional competence to entertain the suit pursuant the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
It is paramount to state the importance of ascertaining the jurisdictional competence of a Court or tribunal when entertaining a matter. The law is trite that it has been pronounced by this Court and also by the Apex Court several times that
17
jurisdiction is very fundamental. It is the live wire of a case which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. If a Court has no jurisdiction to determine a case, the proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. This is so since a defect in competence is not only intrinsic but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. SEE MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) SCNLR 341; OLOBA V AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (P. 84) 508.
Consequently, I now at this point proceed to determine the issue touching on the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit being appealed now. It is trite that for the Federal High Court to assume jurisdiction on a matter, two inalienable conditions precedent must coexist. These conditions are:
a. The Parties or a party must be the Federal Government or its agencies
b. Subject matter of the litigation must fall within the confines of the items enumerated under Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
?That is to say that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is a combination of parties and subject matter.
18
NURTW & ANOR v. RTEAN & ORS (2012) LPELR-7840(SC).
There is no doubt that one of the parties in this appeal is a federal government agency and by that settles the first limb of the conditions aforestated. In a bid to deciding whether the lower Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the action or otherwise as per the second condition as provided above, I shall proceed to ascertain the nature of the claims of the Respondents in the Court below as can be gleaned from the statement of claim at pages 4 ? 7 of the record of appeal. Permit me to reproduce paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim below:
?That the Plaintiff Claims from the Defendant as follows:
a. The sum of N14, 750, 000. 00 (Fourteen Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only representing the unpaid balance of consultancy fees of the Plaintiffs for services rendered to the Defendant.
b. Interest at the rate of 10% on the judgment sum until the debt is fully liquidated
c. The sum of N2, 000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) which represents out of pocket & incidental expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs in the course of carrying out the instruction of the Defendant.
19
After a critical examination of the above claims, I have also taken a close perusal at the Memorandum of understanding executed between the parties as can be found at pages 17-20 of the records, I have duly considered with understanding the duties and reciprocal obligations of the parties as contained in the said document. Permit me to reproduce for clarity purpose, clause 2 of the said Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties. The said clause provides thus:
WHEREBY IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
i. In consideration of the consultant effort in attracting the project aforementioned to the University and consultant services in procuring the redemption of the pledge in addition to any other sum or sums which shall be donated to the University by the said Dr Adenuga Jnr and his conglomerate afore stated, the University has agreed to pay the consultant the fees as provided in this agreement.
ii. The University shall pay the consultants 10% of all sums which shall be realized by it from the pledge and or any other sums not specifically mentioned herein which is donated to the University by either Dr Mike Adenuga Jnr and or any of
20
his group of companies in respect of the NUGA games or for any other purpose whatsoever to the benefit of the University.
iii. The said 10% shall exclude all the running costs and incidental expenses of the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) which the University shall pay a deposit on account of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only and the balance payable on completion of the assignment, such incidental expenses shall however be limited to a maximum sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only and not otherwise.
Considering the above clause contained in the said Memorandum of Understanding as can be gleaned at page 18 of the record, I am left with no option than to hold that the contract between the parties is a simple contract and any action relating to its enforcement ought not to have been instituted in the Federal High Court.
I am of the opinion that gone are the days when the jurisdictional distinction of the Federal and State High Court steered a lot of controversies. This controversy has been laid to rest by the Appellate Courts in a plethora of judicial pronouncement. As rightly put by the Supreme Court in the
21
case of INTEGRATED TIMBER AND PLYWOOD PRODUCTS LTD. v. UBN PLC (2006) LPELR-1519(SC) that:
It is now firmly established that in a simple contract (as in the instant case between the parties), it is the High Court and not the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain and determine it.
SEE ALSO PORTS AND CARGO HANDLINGS SERVICES CO LTD & ORS v. MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2012) LPELR-9725(SC).
On the strength of the forgoing binding judicial pronouncements, I hereby hold that the lower Court erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction in a matter that ought to have been instituted in the State High Court. I hereby resolve this sole issue in favour of the Appellant.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the Appellant in his brief vehemently submitted that this Honourable Court should order the striking out of the suit while the Respondents have also submitted that gone are the days when the Courts were always concerned with technical justice and that the proper Order that should be made by this Court in a bid to doing substantial justice is to order that the matter be transferred to the Court it ought to have be instituted.
22
I have gone through Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap F12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and I shall proceed to reproduce same below:
No cause or matter shall be struck out by the Court merely on the ground that such cause or was taken in the Court instead of the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in which it ought to have been brought, and the Judge of the Court before whom such cause or matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate high Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in accordance with Rules of Court to be made under Section 44 of this Act.?
I agree with the learned counsel to the Respondent that the era of technicalities is over and this Court leans towards doing substantial justice in the matter and looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court is fortified by the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, which provides that:
The Court of Appeal may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in
23
controversy in appeal, and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal, and may direct the Court below to inquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Court of Appeal thinks fit to determine before the final judgment in the appeal, and make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant and may direct necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken, and, generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for purposes of such re-hearing or may give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court, or, in the case of an appeal from the Court below, in that Courts appellate jurisdiction, order the case to be reheard by a Court of competent jurisdiction. (Underlining mine)
?Flowing from the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the Federal High Court Act vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act,
24
which empowers this Court to give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court, I am of the view that the proper order that this Court should make in the circumstance is to have this matter transferred to the appropriate Court that has the jurisdictional competence to entertain same.
In the end therefore, this appeal succeeds in part. The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and I hereby order that the case be transferred to the Chief Judge of the High Court of Enugu State for assignment.
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JCA. He has dealt exhaustively and conclusively with all the issues in the appeal. I agree with his reasoning and conclusions. Learned counsel for the Respondent in raising a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the grounds of appeal lost sight of the fact that being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even at the Supreme Court with or without the leave of the Court and even Suo motu by the Court.
25
See ADEGBOLA & ORS V IDOWU & ORS 2017 2-421 SC Per OGUNBIYI, J.SC ( pp. 24-25, E-A )
“On the question of the new issue/a new point sought to be raised, same relates to a question of jurisdiction which the law Says, can it be raised at any stage of a proceeding, even before judgment. This is because jurisdiction is known to be the bedrock or hallmark of adjudication, without which, there can be no valid proceeding. The issue in question is substantive and not procedural. It is very fundamental and cannot be trivialized.”
I agree that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I abide by the orders in the lead judgment.
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusion therein.
The justice of this case requires that although the trial Court lacks jurisdiction, Section 22 (2) of the Federal High Court Act should be invoked.
For the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment of my
26
learned brother, I equally find merit in the and I accordingly allow it in part.
I also adopt the consequential orders in the judgment as mine.
27
Appearances:
C.V EJIKE-Ume, Esq.
For Appellant(s)
Tochukwu Odo, Esq.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
C.V EJIKE-Ume, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Tochukwu Odo, Esq.For Respondent
