Ime Ekong & Ors. V. Godfrey Oside (National President, Hapsssa) & Ors. (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The following declaratory reliefs were sought by the appellant as plaintiff against the respondent as defendant at the High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the lower court) –
“1. A declaration that the purported dissolution of the Abuja Branch executive of HAPSSSA vide the 3rd defendant letter, dated 11/10/99 with reference No. HPSA/GS/AS/2885/99 is ultra vires, null and void as it negates the provisions of both the HAPSSSA Constitution and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;

2. A declaration that the letter signed by the 1st and 2nd defendants dated 7/10/99 with reference No. HPSA/GS/2885/99 freezing HAPSSSA Nicon Hilton Hotel branch Account No. 0350006479-01 is unconstitutional, ultra-vires, null, void and of no effect, same having been written with malice, jealousy and contempt.

3. A declaration that there was no meeting of the National Executive Council, where the resolution for the suspension and/or dissolution of the Abuja branch HAPSSSA was passed nor the mandate, consent and authority of the NEC obtained to approve of the suspension/dissolution and freezing of the branch accounts.

4. A declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants lack the constitutional ability without the NEC sitting, approving any dissolution/suspension/freezing of a branch account and especially Abuja Nicon HAPSSSA accounts.

5. An order of court reinstating all the branch executives of Abuja Nicon Hilton Hapsssa.

6. An order of court granting the Abuja branch executives access to operate HAPSSSA Nicon Hilton Hotel branch account No. 0350006479-01.

7. An order declaring the letters of 7th and 11th October, 1999, with reference No. HPSA/GS/ AS/2885/99, written and signed by 1st & 2nd defendants as lacking in merit and content and therefore void ab-initio.

8. N10,000.000 (ten million naira only) for defamation of character jointly and severally from 1st and 2nd defendants;
(a) N2,000,000.00 (two million naira) only for general damages;
(b) Cost of action.”

A notice of preliminary objection filed by the respondent was moved on the 15th day of March, 2000. Learned Counsel for the appellant made his reply on the preliminary objection and the learned trial Judge delivered ruling in respect thereof declining jurisdiction to try the suit. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to this court on two grounds.

In compliance with the rules of this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of arguments. Learned Counsel for the appellant set out the following lone issue:-
“1. Whether by the provision of section 2 of Decree 47 of 1992, or any provisions, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit No. CV/831/99.”

Learned Counsel for the respondents formulated one issue for our consideration. It reads as follows:-
“Was the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, right in declining jurisdiction to hear suit No. CV/831/99 based upon the grounds of the defendants’ challenge of its jurisdiction.”

I have observed that a notice of preliminary objection was filed by the respondents. Apparently, however, arguments were canvassed in the respondents’ brief in respect of the preliminary objection in a separate brief filed by the respondent. At any event, the respondents and their counsel were not in court on the date of hearing, though duly served. The notice of preliminary objection and its arguments are therefore deemed abandoned and same are hereby struck out. See Ajibade v. Pedro (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.241) 257; NHRI v. Ayoade (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt.530) 541; Jadesimi v. Okotie-Eboh No. 2 (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.16) 264; Onyekwuluje v. Animashaun (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.439) 637; (1996) SCNJ 24.

The reply brief filed by the appellants in respect of the preliminary objection is equally hereby struck out for lack of legs to stand. We have taken this appeal under the provision of our order 6 r. 9(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002 as none of the parties or their respective counsel was in court to present any oral argument.