Incorporated Trustees Of Island Club & Ors V. Prince Jide Sikuade (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos delivered by HON. JUSTICE M.B IDRIS on the 30/1/2015 wherein the trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s motion dated 10/7/2014 seeking an order of Court to set aside the subpoena duces tecum dated and filed on the 22nd May, 2014 issued against the 3rd Appellant in this suit. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellants filed an Amended Notice of Appeal dated and filed 8/5/2015 and deemed on the 25/2/16 raising 6 grounds of appeal.

The facts of the case are that the Respondent took out an Originating Summons against the Appellants challenging their decision to exclude the Respondent from the club. The Appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. The Respondent then made an application to the Court for subpoena duces tecum to be issued against the 3rd Appellant ex parte. Prior to the said application, the Appellants had challenged the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court opted to take the originating summons along the challenge to jurisdiction. The issuance of subpoena duces tecum was

1

challenged and a motion filed to set it aside, the Court overruled the application to set aside the Subpoena duces tecum, thus this appeal.

The Appellants filed their brief dated 8/5/2015 on the same day deemed on the 25/2/2016 and a reply dated 13/10/2016 filed on the same day but deemed on the 18/10/2016. The Appellants Brief distilled 3 issues for determination as follows:

a) Whether a trial Court has the jurisdiction/competence to issue a subpoena against a party in a proceeding when the jurisdiction of that Court is being contested/attacked by that party.

b) Whether the trial Court was right to have dismissed the appellants’ application and upheld the subpoena duces tecum for the reasons adduced.

c) Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to address an issue raised by the appellants occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The Respondent on its part filed his Respondent’s Brief dated 4/3/2016 filed same day and formulated a sole issue thus:

Whether the Court below was not right in refusing to set aside the subpoena duces tecum issued on 22nd May 2014.

?The Respondent raised a Preliminary objection contending

2

that Issue One of the Appellants’ Brief does not relate to the instant appeal. Arguments in support of the preliminary objection are embedded in the Respondent’s Brief while the Appellants responded to the Preliminary objection in their Reply Brief.