Prophetess Oluwaniyi V. Chief Olufemi Adewumi (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AUGIE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal against the Ruling of Arasi, J., of the High Court, Ibadan, Oyo State, delivered on the 24th of March 2003, wherein he dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection, which challenged the jurisdiction of the said Court to entertain the Respondent’s action against her. The parties are neighbors; the Respondent occupies Plot 28, Block XII of New Government Reservation Area (GRA), Iyaganku, Ibadan, while the Appellant is the Founder and Proprietress of the Christ Mercy Church at Plot 29 of the same Block XII, New GRA, Iyaganku. The Respondent instituted an action against the Appellant and two other Defendants in Suit No. 1/694/2002, wherein he claimed an injunction to restrain her and the Members of her Church “from further committing nuisance due to noise as a result of their worship activities”; N5, 000, 000 as general damages; and “an order directing the 2nd & 3rd Defendants to ensure that the property situate at Plot 29, Block XII, New G.R.A. Iyaganku, Ibadan is not used for any purpose other than that for which it was leased”. In an earlier Suit No. 1/34/2002 claiming the same reliefs, the Respondent and two other Occupiers of properties in the said Block XII had sued the Appellant in her personal capacity along with the two other Defendants – Oyo State Government & Attorney-General of Oyo State.

The Appellant as the 1st Defendant therein filed a preliminary objection praying the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ action on the following grounds –

(1) Plaintiffs have no common cause of action.

(2) The 2nd & 3rd Plaintiffs claim no relief in this case.

(3) The 1st Defendant is not a party to this action.

(4) Plaintiffs’ case discloses no cause of action against the 2nd & 3rd Defendants.

(5) The action is not maintainable against the 1st Defendant.

(6) The action is incompetent.

After hearing arguments, Arasi, J., delivered his Ruling on the 27th of May 2002 wherein he held that the action was incompetent because each separate injury is a distinct tort, and “no particulars of the injuries sustained by each person are pleaded as to make it clearly identifiable as his own personal loss”.

He however held that the Appellant was a proper party to the action because to the Plaintiffs, she was “the actual wrongdoer”. The Respondent thereafter filed Suit No. 1/694/2002, which has the Appellant, as the” 1st Defendant for herself and on behalf of all members of Christ Mercy Church”, and the Oyo State Government & Attorney General of Oyo State as 2nd & 3rd Defendants respectively. Again, the Appellant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action on the following Grounds –

1. The suit is not maintainable against the 1st Defendant/Applicant in her personal capacity and/or in a representative capacity.
2. The 1st Defendant/Applicant is not a proper/necessary party in this suit as presently constituted.
3. The Plaintiff/Respondent is not the proper and/or appropriate party in the alleged public nuisance.
4. The Plaintiff cannot maintain this suit alone.
5. This suit discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant.
6. The entire suit is incompetent, misconceived and improperly constituted.

The objection was argued, and after hearing addresses of counsel, Arasi, J., delivered his Ruling on the 24th of March 2003, wherein he held as follows –

“I have earlier held that the Christ Mercy Church is a necessary party to this suit for the effectual and complete settlement of the issue between the parties. Order 11 Rule 5 (1) of the Oyo State High Court Procedure Rules 1988 gives this Court the power to join all persons who may be affected by the result of any suit to join such persons to the suit. Since the issues between the parties in this suit cannot be effectually and completely settled without joining the Registered Trustees of the Christ Mercy Church as co-defendant in this suit- they are accordingly hereby so joined’. (Italics mine).

He held as follows on the issue of whether the Appellant was a proper party –