Adesupo Adetona V. Ita Edet & Ors (2000)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
OGUNTADE, J.C.A.
The Appellant is the Applicant and prays for an order staying further proceedings in Suit No. LD/17/98 pending at the Lagos High Court before Rhodes- Vivour J.
Before the lower Court, the Appellant/Applicant was the 2nd Defendant. He brought an application jointly with the 1st Defendant, Newspin Limited that the suit by the plaintiff/Respondents be dismissed on the ground that the statement of claim filed disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Alternatively, they asked that their names be struck out from the suit.
On 28/5/98,Rhodes- Vivour J, in a considered ruling refused the application. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the ruling. He brought an appeal against it on three grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal without their particulars read: “3.1 The learned trial Judge erred in law held that a cause of action is clearly established against 2nd Defendant/Appellant but failed to identify or refer to specific averments of the statement of claim in support of his decision.
3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“Now if the plaintiff succeeds in his action it is the receiver that would pay the judgment debt. Surely, the 2nd defendant is a necessary party in this suit…”
3.3 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the plaintiff’s claim is enforceable against the Insurance Company i.e. the 3rd Defendant decides to pay the claim; it is to the receiver such money shall be paid and not directly to the plaintiff. It is the receiver who shall thereafter pay to the plaintiff the said sum…”
The Applicant had also on 27/5/98, raised a notice of preliminary objection on the following grounds:-
“1. The 2nd Defendant is sued by the plaintiff as per his statement of claim dated 6/1/98, by virtue of his office as the receiver of the 1st Defendant.
- The plaintiffs claim against the 2nd Defendant a receiver of the 1st Defendant arose from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act particularly Section 393.
- It is only the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain any matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Decree 1990, by virtue of Section 230(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, (as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.)”.
The trial Judge took arguments for and against the preliminary objection and on 28th May, 1999, in a considered ruling overruled the preliminary objection.
Once again, the 2nd Defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling overruling his preliminary objection. He brought an appeal against the ruling on two grounds of appeal. The said grounds without their particulars read:
“3.1 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he dismissed the 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s preliminary objection as contained in the notice dated the 27th day of May, 1998, to the effect that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant being a matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Decree, 1990.
3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he dismissed the 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s preliminary objection having already held that “Matters that arise from the operation of companies and which the legislators have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to adjudicate upon are matters such as dealings in Share Holdings, Winding Up of the Company, Receivership, Liquidation…”
The application, which is for stay of further proceedings was argued before us on 25/11/99. In arguing the application, Mr. O. O. Adejuyigbe, learned Counsel for the Applicant referred us to the two notices of appeal filed. He submitted that substantial issues of law including the jurisdiction of the lower Court were raised in the notices of appeal. He urged us to grant the application.
Mr. Abang for the 1st Respondent submitted that the application before the Court was incompetent as the applicant did not obtain the leave of court before filing the appeal. He said the grounds of appeal were of mixed law and fact. He referred to Eze v. Okolonji (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt.513) 527-530. With respect to the second notice of appeal, Counsel said that the applicant had not first sought a stay of proceedings before the lower court before coming to this court. Counsel said thatthe issue of jurisdiction was not raised in good faith.
Mr. Adejuyigbe in reply said that the grounds of appeal were all of law. He referred to I.B.W.A. Ltd. v. ANAMCO Ltd. (1995) 5 NWLR (pt.396) 482; Metal Construction W.A. Ltd. v. Migliore (1990) 1 NWLR (pt.126) 299. In this ruling, I intend first to say that I have read closely the two notices of appeal filed and, I am satisfied that each of them raises grounds of appeal filed on all questions of law. There was therefore no need for the leave of the Court to be sought or obtained before the notices were filed. On the first notice of appeal, the Appellant is contending that the statement of claim raised no reasonable cause of action. It is trite that where a plaintiffs claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, a court is without jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (pt.18) 669. That being the position of the law, it is obvious that Applicant’s first notice of appeal raises the question of jurisdiction.
The learned Counsel for 1st Respondent has argued that the Applicant had not first sought a stay of proceedings from the lower Court in respect of the second notice of appeal. But, It seems to me that once I am satisfied that the Applicant has made a case to be granted a stay of proceedings in respect of his first notice of appeal, it is irrelevant that he had not sought the leave of court in respect of the 2nd notice of appeal.
I am satisfied that the Applicant’s first notice of appeal had raised the question of jurisdiction, and it is futile and may amount to a waste of resources and time to allow the proceedings before the lower Court to continue when that proceedings may at the end of the day be pronounced a nullity if the appeal succeeds. This is a proper case in which to exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicant.
This application succeeds. The proceedings in suit No. LD/17/98, before Rhodes- Vivour J., at the Lagos High Court are stayed pending the determination of the appeal filed by the applicant. I make no order as to costs.
Other Citations: (2000)LCN/0694(CA)