Rahamaniyya Global Resources Limited V. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal of the defendant in Suit No.SS/99/2014 against the decision of the High Court of justice 111 Sokoto delivered on 19/05/2015.

On 3/11/2014, the plaintiff at the lower Court initiated the action by causing the writ of summons to be issued in respect of the claim endorsed thereon. The said writ of summons, apart from having been signed by the Registrar of the lower Court was also signed by learned counsel for the plaintiff, Abdulkadir Mustapha of A. M. Abdulkadir & Co. In addition to the above the following was also endorsed on the writ

“??This writ was issued by the plaintiff through its solicitor A. M. Abubakar & Co No C -?? 21 Zaria Road, Kano Legal Practitioners for the plaintiff who reside in Sokoto.”

It is against the above that the defendant, now appellant, entered conditional appearance and filed notice of preliminary objection.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge, on 19/05/2015 ruled inter alia thus

“??The case of SLB Consortium Ltd (supra) demonstrate the need

and importance that a Writ of Summons must be signed by a legal Practitioner. In the case at hand Learned Plaintiff counsel did signed the writ of summons which learned defence counsel has no issue on that. I therefore, will and do agree with the submission of the learned Plaintiff counsel that the above case relied on by the defence, supports case of the plaintiff.

Be that as it may be, can the issue raised by learned Defence Counsel divest this Court of jurisdiction to entertain this suit? I do not think so having regard to Order 2.1 (1) High Court Civil Procedure Rules of 1993. The provisions states:-

“??Where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceeding or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings, there has, by reason of anything done or left undone, been a failure to comply with the requirement of the rules, whether in respect of time, place. Manner, form or content or in any other respect, the failure may be treated as an irregularity and if so treated, will not nullify the proceedings, or any other document, judgment or Order therein”

The slip identified is an irregularity that is curable as

such, same cannot be the basis this Court will surrender its jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

In conclusion, it is here ordered the plaintiff should effect the necessary correction highlighted as apparent on the writ of summons to wit, a wit can only be issued by a legal Practitioner and not a law firm.

Consequently, from the foregoing, the preliminary objection by learned defence counsel is here overruled. This case will proceed for determination on merit.”