WORLD MISSION AGENCY INC. v. CHIEF OLUFEMI SODEINDE & ANOR
(2012)LCN/5691(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012
CA/I/213/2010
RATIO
JURISDICTION: WHETHER PROPER PARTIES AFFECT THE COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION OF A COURT OVER A MATTER
A case in point is Cotecna International Limited v. Churchgate Nigeria Limited and Anor, (2011) All FWLR (Pt.575) 252 at 286 where Adekeye, J.S.C., held inter alia-
“It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit: Best Vision Centre Limited v. U.A.C.N.P.D.C. Plc. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 594; Ikeme v. Anakure (2000) 8 NWLR Plc. (Pt.669) 484; Peenock Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential (1983) 4 NCLR 122; Ehidimhen v. Musa (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.669) 540.” (my emphasis).
Another case in point is Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd. and Anor v. Witt and Bush Ltd. (2011) All FWLR (Pt.576) 517 at 542 – 543 per Adekeye, J.S.C., thus –
“It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified, before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit: Best Vision Centre Limited v. U.A.C.N.P.D.C. Plc. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 594; Ikeme v. Anakwe (2000) 8 NWLR Plc. (Pt.669) 484; Peenock Investment Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential Ltd (1982) a NCLR 122; (2011) All FWLR (Pt.571) 1428; Ehidimhen v. Musa (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.21) 930, (2000) 8 NWLR (pt.699) 540.” (my emphasis).
See again The Supreme Court Practice (White Book) 1985 Edition page 184 paragraph 15/6/14 where it is stated that if an objection is taken that the proper parties are not before the court, it should be taken as soon as possible or at the earliest opportunity citing in aid the English cases of Sheehan v. G.E.R, (1881) 16 Ch. D. 59, Ruston v. Tobin (1879) 49 L.J. Ch.262, Roberts v. Evans (1879) 7 Ch. D. 830. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: REQUIREMENT WHERE THE JURISTIC PERSONALITY OF AN ARTIFICIAL BODY IS CHALLENGED
Once the juristic personality of an artificial body is challenged, whether in limine as was done in the case at hand, or on the pleadings, proof of its juristic existence must be established by evidence of a certified true copy of its registration or incorporation as prima facie evidence of its corporate status See Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd. v. Witt and Bush Ltd, (supra) 533-534 and particularly at 544 as follows:
“The law is that where the legal personality of incorporated company is called into question and issue joined thereon, the onus is on the party claiming the status of juristic person derived from such incorporation to establish it and the corporate status of a body is established by the production of its certificate of incorporation. By section 36(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 59, Laws of the Federation, 1990, only a certificate of registration or incorporation of a company or association is prima facie evidence of incorporation of such company or association.”
See also N.N.P.C. v. Lutin Investment Ltd (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.965) 506. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
ORDER: WHETHER AN ORDER CAN BE MADE AGAINST A NON-JURISTIC PERSON
It is trite that only a person known to law that could sue and be sued, by this no order or judgment of the court can be made against a non-juristic person. PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MONICA B. DONGBAN MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
WORLD MISSION AGENCY INC. – Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF OLUFEMI SODEINDE
2. CHIEF IDOWU ADEWUSI
(For themselves and on behalf of The Gbalefa Family and the Egba Community of Iju, Gbalefa Peninsula In Ado-Odo/Ota LGA of Ogun State) – Respondent(s)
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is sequel to a Ruling of the High Court of Justice of Ogun State sitting in Ota in the Ota Judicial Division (the court below) dismissing the preliminary objection brought by the appellant challenging its juristic existence as defendant against the respondents’ suit at the court below.
The background facts were that the respondents sued the appellant using the name and title of World Mission Agency Inc.’ They claimed five reliefs against the appellant, The said reliefs were tied to disputed ownership of a parcel of land in the Gbalefa Peninsular in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area of Ogun State.
The application for a writ of summons accompanied a statement of claim. Both maintained the description of the appellant as defendant in the name and style of ‘World Mission Agency Inc’. The appellant did not file statement of defence. It sponsored a notice of preliminary objection attacking the juristic personality of the appellant. The court below heard the preliminary objection on affidavit evidence and legal submissions of the contending parties. It dismissed the preliminary objection on the grounds that it should have been raised in a statement of defence and that the certificate of occupancy together with the survey plan over the disputed tract of land are in the said name of the appellant which was confirmed by a verified copy of Corporate Affairs Commission Company (C.A.C.) search.
By an order for extension of time to appeal and for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal (Trinity prayers) granted by this court on 5.7.10 (see pages 44.45 of the record of appeal (the record)), the appellant filed a notice of appeal with four grounds of appeal reflected on pages 41-43 of the record.
The appellant’s brief of argument filed on 13.7.2010, distilled two issues for determination on the appeal. For convenience, I copy the two issues below-
“(i) Whether the Preliminary Objection raised by the Appellant in this suit, as to its juristic personality was precipitate, same having been raised in limine, without filing Statement of Defence.
(ii) Whether the presence of the name WORLD MISSION AGENCY INC. (the Appellant), in a certificate of occupancy and/or in an uncertified public document is proof of Appellant’s juristic personality.”
In arguing the appeal on the first issue married to ground 4 of the notice of appeal,the appellant cited the cases of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 595, Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517 at 557, Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.357) 414 at 454, F.G.N. v. Oshiomole (2004) All FWLR (Pt.209) 972 at 982, Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 2 NSCC 120 at 135, Owodunni v. Registered Trustees C.C.C. (2008) All FWLR (Pt.421) 824 at 852-853 and section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, (1999 Constitution) to urge that the question of the juristic personality of the appellant is a matter of jurisdiction which can be raised in limine or without filing statement of defence and was properly raised by the respondents by way of preliminary objection under the overriding provision of section 6 of the 1999 Constitution.
Arguments on the second issue linked to grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal agitated that by section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution read with the cases of Knight and Seale v. Dove (1964) 2 All E.R. 307 at 309, Fawehinmi v. N.B.A. (No.2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.105) 555 at 632, Randle v. Kwara Breweries Ltd (1985) 6 SC 15, Registered Trustees Pentecostal Assemblies of the World Inc, v. Registered Trustees African Apostolic Christ Church (2003) FWLR (Pt.150) 1795 at 1813 the juristic personality of the appellant donated to it by statute or incorporation as an artificial person can only be established by evidence of certified true copy of its certificate of incorporation under sections 36(6), 596(3) and 606 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2004, and sections 97(2) 111 and 112 of the Evidence Act, (2011), and the cases of Ndayako v. Mohammed (2007) 32 WRN 176 at 190, Oba Okiki 11 v. Jagun (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt.655) 19, not by certificate of occupancy under section 65(1) of the Land Use Act 1978, and section 18 of the Interpretation Act, 2000; consequently the court below was wrong to place reliance on Exhibit J01 (certificate of occupancy) Exhibits J02 and J03 (pleadings in an earlier suit between different parties) and the uncertified Exhibit J04 (C.A.C. Company search) to resolve that the appellant is a juristic person and was properly sued in the name of “World Mission Agency Incorporation” vide Adomba v. Odiese (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.125) 165 at 186, Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) FWLR (R.12) 2015 at 2044, Edem v. Canon Balls Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt.276) 693 at 716, Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 511 at 539, Akano v. Ilorin Emirate Council (2001) FWLR (Pt,42) 59 at 80, Egbue v. Araka (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.433) 688 at 710-711.
It was finally argued that the court below should have presumed under section 149(d) of the Evidence Act that the non-production of the certified true copy of the certificate of incorporation of the appellant amounted to the withholding of a piece of evidence and precluded the court below from presuming by “Judicial Knight Errantry” that the appellant was incorporated vide Egbue v. Araka (supra), Ohwovoriole v. F.G.N. (2003) FWLR (Pt.141) 2019 at 2035 and Katto v. CBN (1991) 2 NSCC 737
The respondents’ brief dated and filed on 8.12.10, but deemed properly filed on 14.12.10, raised a preliminary objection on the competency of grounds 1-3 of the notice of appeal on the premise that no issue of admissibility of documents emerged from the Ruling of the court below, therefore the said grounds of appeal did not arise from the ratio of the Ruling of the court below and ought to be discountenanced vide Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156 at 184.
The respondents’ brief proceeded to identify an issue for determination of the appeal framed thus –
“Whether the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant at the court below as to the juristic personality of the Appellant was precipitate, same having been raised in limine, without filing a statement of defence.”
The respondents’ brief argued that an issue of juristic personality cannot be determined on the basis of the writ and statement of claim and no affidavit evidence or statement of defence comes into play in the consideration of juristic personality at that stage as it is not an issue of jurisdiction vide A-G Kwara State and Ors. v. Raimi Olawale (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.272) 545 at 663-664, 674 and 675, Boothia Maritime Inc. and Ors, v. Far East Mercantile Co, Ltd. (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) (pagination not supplied), Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517, Shell Petroleum …. and Ors. v. Nwawka and Anor. (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.720) 64 at 79; that the statement of claim does not show lack of legal personality of the appellant therefore proof of legal personality of the appellant did not arise at that early or interlocutory stage of the proceedings but should be a matter to be raised or challenged by the defence in a statement of defence and proved at the trial of the action having regard to the fact that demurrer had been abolished by Order 24 rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of the court below considered with the cases of Bank of Baroda v. Iyalabani Co. Ltd, (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt.785) 551 at 572 – 574, Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. General Manager G. B. Ollivant (1961) 1 All NLR 116 and Principles of Practice and Procedure in Civil Actions in the High Court in Nigeria (1976 Edition) by Aguda at page 31.
A reply brief filed on 17.12.10 argued that the competence of the grounds of appeal was earlier settled in the case of Sodeinde v. World Mission Agency Inc. (2010) 2 WRN 153 pursuant to which the appellants regularised the grounds of appeal in a new application that gave rise to the present appeal, therefore the respondents are estopped from challenging the competence of the grounds of appeal vide Rozen Investment Ltd. v. NDIC (2007) All FWLR (Pt.348) 823 at 848; that the respondents introduced Exhibits J0L, J02, J03 and J04 in a bid to prove the juristic personality of the appellant and the issue was canvassed by the parties but the court below neglected to specifically rule on it, so grounds 1-3 of the notice of appeal from which the second issue is derived are competent vide Okonji v. Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.202) 131 at 155; that Exhibit J04 has the inscription “Certified True Copy” at the foot thereof and is endorsed by one Miss T. O. Olatunji, Registrar of the court, who also made similar endorsements on the other documents in Exhibit J04; and that the juristic personality of the appellant was not pleaded and the appellant could not have been expected to file a defence to the action, as it does not exist as a juristic person, and the appeal should be allowed.
Indeed Exhibits J01-J04 were introduced by respondents into the matter at the court below on pages 20-23 and 26 of the record. Arguments were also made by learned counsel for the respective parties on the said Exhibits on pages 28 and 31 of the record. The court below referred to the said Exhibits on pages 35, 37-38 of the record while summarising the arguments for and against the preliminary objection. The court below even relied on Exhibits J01 and J04 on page 39 of the record to resolve the preliminary objection against the appellant.
Grounds one and two of the notice of appeal on pages 41-42 of the record upon which issue (ii) of the appellant is pegged therefore have bearing on the appeal as a live issue, and the appellant is right to agitate the question of the admissibility in evidence of the said Exhibits and the weight that should be attached to them, more so the respondents also canvassed the same question in their brief of argument. The objection is accordingly not well taken and is hereby discountenanced-see Ekpeto and Ors v. Wanogho and Ors. (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt.905) 394 at 411, Ndukamba v. Kolomo (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt.915) 411 at 428.
In my considered opinion, the two issues submitted by the appellant for determination (supra) encompass the respondents’ single issue for determination (supra). Therefore, I find it convenient to follow the appellant’s issues (supra) for the discourse.
I tend to agree with the appellant that the issue whether the respondents sued a juristic person as defendant at the court below is a matter of jurisdiction which can be raised before the filing of statement of defence. It need not be raised as a point of law in the statement of defence. Order 24 of the Rules of the court below on demurrer is therefore inapplicable: The defendant need not wait or delay or stay until the exchange of pleadings to raise a threshold issue of competence of parties to an action: An issue of jurisdiction or competence of an action regarding proper composition of the parties may be taken on the writ or statement of claim – see Owodunni and Ors. v. The Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2008) All FWLR (Pt.421) 824 at 844-845 thus –
“On the other hand, an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, such as the respondent’s in the instant case, can be raised at any time even before the filing of pleadings, and the only process of court in place are the writ of summons taken out by the plaintiff and affidavits in support of the interlocutory application by virtue of which the objection is raised. See Attorney-General, Kwara State v. Olawole (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.272) 645 at 674 and Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Nwaka (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.720) 60 and Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria (2002) FWLR (Pt.99) 1021, (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 272.”See also Akpan and Ors. v. The Government of Akwa Ibom and Ors. (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt.1178) 338 following Amaechi v. INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1065) 42,and section 6 of the 1999 Constitution.
It would have been otherwise if the respondents had pleaded that the appellant is a registered body in which case the appellant would have been required to file a statement of defence denying its registration as a juristic person which could have brought into play the proof of the issue of the said registration at the hearing of the action – see by analogy Orogan v. Soremekun (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.44) 688. But that was not the case as the statement of claim of the respondents on pages 3-5 of the record is bereft of any averment on the juristic personality of the appellant, an artificial expression.
The case of Dada v. Ogunsanya (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.232) 754 cited by respondents’ learned senior counsel in the course of oral hearing of the appeal on 17.10.12, is not, with deference, helpful as it deals with the locus standi of plaintiff to file an action in court, not on the filing of an action against a party with questionable juristic personality as in the instant case.
A case in point is Cotecna International Limited v. Churchgate Nigeria Limited and Anor, (2011) All FWLR (Pt.575) 252 at 286 where Adekeye, J.S.C., held inter alia-
“It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit: Best Vision Centre Limited v. U.A.C.N.P.D.C. Plc. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 594; Ikeme v. Anakure (2000) 8 NWLR Plc. (Pt.669) 484; Peenock Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential (1983) 4 NCLR 122; Ehidimhen v. Musa (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.669) 540.” (my emphasis).
Another case in point is Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd. and Anor v. Witt and Bush Ltd. (2011) All FWLR (Pt.576) 517 at 542 – 543 per Adekeye, J.S.C., thus –
“It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified, before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit: Best Vision Centre Limited v. U.A.C.N.P.D.C. Plc. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 594; Ikeme v. Anakwe (2000) 8 NWLR Plc. (Pt.669) 484; Peenock Investment Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential Ltd (1982) a NCLR 122; (2011) All FWLR (Pt.571) 1428; Ehidimhen v. Musa (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.21) 930, (2000) 8 NWLR (pt.699) 540.” (my emphasis).
See again The Supreme Court Practice (White Book) 1985 Edition page 184 paragraph 15/6/14 where it is stated that if an objection is taken that the proper parties are not before the court, it should be taken as soon as possible or at the earliest opportunity citing in aid the English cases of Sheehan v. G.E.R, (1881) 16 Ch. D. 59, Ruston v. Tobin (1879) 49 L.J. Ch.262, Roberts v. Evans (1879) 7 Ch. D. 830.
Once the juristic personality of an artificial body is challenged, whether in limine as was done in the case at hand, or on the pleadings, proof of its juristic existence must be established by evidence of a certified true copy of its registration or incorporation as prima facie evidence of its corporate status See Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd. v. Witt and Bush Ltd, (supra) 533-534 and particularly at 544 as follows:
“The law is that where the legal personality of incorporated company is called into question and issue joined thereon, the onus is on the party claiming the status of juristic person derived from such incorporation to establish it and the corporate status of a body is established by the production of its certificate of incorporation. By section 36(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 59, Laws of the Federation, 1990, only a certificate of registration or incorporation of a company or association is prima facie evidence of incorporation of such company or association.”
See also N.N.P.C. v. Lutin Investment Ltd (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.965) 506.
The court below relied on a certificate of occupancy (C of O) in Exhibit J01 and Corporate Affairs Commission (C.A.C.) company search in Exhibit J04 to hold on page 39 of the record that –
“Does it lie in the name of an artificial person who has a Certificate of Occupancy in its name, a Survey Plan covering a large tract of land of which the land in dispute forms a part in its name and a search confirming that the defendant’s name exists with the Corporate Affairs Commission to say that it does not exist? That will boil down to technicality short of referring to it as bordering on fraud. The defendant should not be allowed to blow hot and cold.
If the defendant is not a juristic person and thus no organisation exists in that name, can this be made known to the Ogun State Government to hold that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 023693 issued in the name of the defendant World Mission Agency Inc. be set aside as having been obtained by a non-existing organisation?.”
With full respect to the court below and at the risk of emphasis, only a certified true copy of the certificate of registration or incorporation with an endorsement of payment of fees for it by the person that procured it would have been prima facie proof of the registration or incorporation of the appellant as a juristic person – see The Registered Trustees of the Apostolic Church Ilesha v. The Attorney – General of Mid-Western State (1972) 1 All NLR 356 at 359 – 360. 363; Tabik Investment Ltd. and Anor. v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc. (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240 at 256, 258 and 262.
There is no indication on the face of Exhibits J01 – J04, public documents, that any is a certified true copy of certificate of registration or certificate of incorporation of the appellant as a juristic person, nor do the said public documents convey evidence of payment of fees to the issuing authority by the person that procured them as mandatorily required by law vide Tabik (supra), therefore Exhibits J01 – J04, and in particular Exhibits J01 and J04, upon which the court below relied to anchor its ruling that the appellant’s registration or incorporation as a juristic body suffer from death wounds and should not have been used by the court below to base its decision thereon that proof of the registration or incorporation of the appellant was established, It erred by so holding, in my humble view.
May I most respectfully add that it is of utmost necessity that parties to an action or suit be natural or artificial persons – see again section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution,as amended, Fawehinmi v. N.B.A. (supra), Nurses Association of Nigeria v. A-G of the Federation (1981) 11-12 SC 128, Anyebe v. State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.14) 39 followed in E.I.I.A. v. C.LE. Ltd, (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.959) 115 at 128, Abu and Ors. v. Ogli and Ors. (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.413) 353 at 372.
Proof of registration of the appellant as a juristic personality was, accordingly, not met by the respondents and the action against the appellant as defendant at the court below is incompetent see Best Vision Centre Limited v. U.A.C. N.P.D.C. Plc (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 394, The name of the appellant as defendant at the court below ought to have been struck out see Idanre Local Government and Anor. v. The Governor of Ondo State and Ors, (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1214) 509 at 525 – 526.
There is merit in the appeal. I allow it. The Ruling of the court below is hereby set aside. The suit at the court below is struck out on account of incompetence arising from lack of proof of the juristic existence of the sole defendant that was sued in the action. No order on costs.
MONICA B. DONGBAN MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead judgment prepared by my learned brother IKYEGH JCA. No legal action can be sustained against a non-juristic person. The burden is always on he who proposes to establish a fact positively.
The Respondent failed to establish the juristic personage of the Appellant and therefore cannot proceed against a non-existent person. (See Best Vision Centre Ltd. vs. U.A.C.N.P.D.C. Plc (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.394).
This appeal therefore succeeds and the incompetent suit filed before the trial court is hereby struck out.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read before now the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH JCA.
His Lordship has dealt with the issues comprehensively. I would only add a word or two by way of emphasis.
It is trite that only a person known to law that could sue and be sued, by this no order or judgment of the court can be made against a non-juristic person. It has been shown that Exhibits J01-J04, a public document did not meet the criteria required of a public document to prove the juristic personality of the appellant as defendant in the lower court, that is: the certificate of registration or certificate of incorporation of the appellant as a juristic person were not certified true copies that were tendered and admitted in evidence, which were utilized erroneously by the lower court in holding that the incorporation of the appellant had been established. See: TABIK INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR VS. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (2011) 17 NWLR 240 at 256. On the face of these Exhibits purportedly used to prove the appellant’s status as a juristic person as public documents, there was no evidence of payment of the required fees to the issuing authority.
It is therefore clear that the appellant as defendant is a non-juristic person or legal entity and order of the court could neither sue or be sued, and a fortiori no order of the court be imposed on it. See, AMODU RUFAI SHITTA & 11 ORS VS. CHIEF IMAN MOMODU LIGALI & 9 ORS. 16 N.L.R. 23; OLU OF WARRI VS. CHIEF SAM WARRI ESI (1959) SCNLR 384; 1959 3 F.S.C. 94, AGHONMAGHE BANK LTD VS. G. B. OLLIVANT LTD. (1961) 1 ALL N.L.R. 116, ONYEKWULUNNEE VS. NDULIU (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt.512) 250 at 270 – 271.
For the court to have the competence to entertain a matter, the proper parties must be before it. It is pertinent that it be resolved first before the filing of all the required processes. In this case the respondents argued that the statement of defence ought to have been filed first before raising the objection as to the legal capacity of the appellant sued as a defendant. In my humble view, this would be a waste of precious judicial time. As the proper parties, must be before the court as it touches on the power of the court and obligation on the party wrongly brought to court to go into the matter or not.
For the fuller and detailed reasons given in the lead judgment, I also allow the appeal and set aside the Ruling of the lower court. The suit in the lower court having been brought against a non-juristic person, b hereby struck out. I abide by the order awarding no costs.
Appearances
Mr. J. O. Mbamalu (with Mr. F. J. Ayemere and Miss A. O. Anichebe)For Appellant
AND
Mr. A. O. Ayanlaja, S.A.N. (with Mr. Alli)For Respondent
