Nto Andrew O. Ansa & Ors. V. The Owner/managing Director Rvl Motors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A.

On 17/1/02 the appellants then plaintiffs, issued a writ of summons and claimed the following reliefs against the defendants now respondents:

“Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, its servants, agents and/or assigns from further trespassing into the plaintiffs’ land on the Murtala Mohammed Highway, opposite Naval Officers Quarters/Federal High Court, Calabar now used by RVL Motors.

2. N15 Million damages for trespass.”

The owner/Managing Director, RVL Motors entered appearance as the defendant on 28/1/02. The appellants filed their statement of claim on 8/2/02 and on 6/3/02 the defendant, now respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection on the following grounds:

“1. That this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. That the defendant in this suit is not a juristic person and as such unknown to law.
3. That there are no proper parties before this Honourable Court.”

After series of adjournments, Counsel for the parties concluded arguments on the preliminary objection on 16/2/05 and the Court adjourned to 10/3/2005 for ruling. In the ruling of 10/3/2005, the trial court declared as follows:

“I have no difficulty at all in reaching the conclusion that the defendant as constituted is unknown to law and the name of the defendant is accordingly struck out. There being no other defendant left to sustain this suit, it is hereby struck out as a civil suit cannot stand without a defendant in our advertorial system of jurisprudence.”

(See page 13 of the Records).

The appellants felt aggrieved and appealed to this court on four grounds. In their brief of argument the appellants formulated the following two issues for determination:

“1. Whether proceedings can be commenced against the owner or Managing Director of a Business or Businesses name.

2. Whether terminating the matter without hearing on merit has not denied the plaintiffs of fair hearing.”

In his own brief of argument the respondent presented three issues for determination:

1) Whether the defendant/respondent could be proceeded against in the name of owner/Managing Director RVL Motors.

2) Whether such title as owner/Managing Director can substitute the names of a juristic person known to law.

3) Whether the striking out of the suit by the learned trial Judge after taking argument from both parties on the preliminary objection could in any way amount to a denial of the plaintiffs/appellants right to fair hearing.”