Bishop Nyong Davies Ayakndue & Ors v. Bishop Paul Akpan Augustine (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA-AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellants’ alleged facts are that by the Constitution of the appellants’ church, before a person can be appointed the President of the church, he must be a trustee and a bishop.

Following the death of one of the trustees, S.E. Equah in 2001, the then President sidelined the appellants, who are registered trustees and nominated the respondent, who was a bishop but not a registered trustee, as the Vice President.

Soon thereafter, the then President, Bishop A.B.U. Akpabio died and the respondent seized power and assumed office as the President of the church on 1/7/2002, without being registered as a trustee contrary to the church Constitution. This led to crisis within the church and after efforts of settlement failed, the appellants instituted this action.

The respondent on the other hand claimed that by newspaper publications, the church called for nominations to elect a replacement for Bishop Samuel E. Uquah after his demise.

The respondent was thereafter elected in a meeting of the church held on 25/5/2002 and in compliance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act, applied to the Registrar General of Corporate Affairs Commission for its assent and placed public notices for objection in 3 national dailies and none of the appellants objected to the election of the respondent within 28 days as required by Section 594(3) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

That even the 1st appellant participated in the election of the respondent and dissociated himself from the suit. The trial court granted their reliefs but upturned by the Court of Appeal, hence this appeal by the appellants. The respondent having adopted the appellants’ issues for determination, the issues for determination are:

1. Whether the failure by the Court of Appeal to resolve the issue of whether the respondent who was not registered as a Trustee as at the time he became the President of the church having regard to Section 14 (b) of the constitution based on the evidence canvassed by both parties has not occasioned miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal did not breach the right of the appellants to fair hearing when it received and relied on the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja in suit No. FHC/ABS/M/239/2009; a judgment which was not in issue before the trial court to sustain the respondent’s appeal after parties had concluded argument on the appeal and the appeal was adjourned for judgment without affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard on the effect of the said judgment on the appeal.

Preliminary objection:

The respondent has however filed a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal thus:

1. That the 2nd appellant who is not a member of the Mount Zion Light House Full Gospel Church Incorporated has no locus standi to institute this action or complain about the running or even purport to vie for any office in the church.
2. The appellants who instituted this action as Registered Trustees are not proper persons to sue to confer jurisdiction on the court.
3. By the provisions of section 599(3) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20 Laws of the Federation and exhibit 11 attached to the motion on notice dated 29th June, 2012 and filed on 4th July, 2012, this suit discloses no cause of action to confer jurisdiction on the honourable court.

It is the argument of the respondent’s learned counsel that because the 2nd appellant was excommunicated for 10 years; he does not have the locus standi to prosecute this case. It is further argued that the appellants sued in their individual names as representing the trustees, and the Board of trustees is not a corporate body that can sue or be sued.

Also, that by exhibit 11, the trusteeship of the respondent took effect from 25/5/2002. Thus, as at July 2002, the 2nd appellant was not a registered trustee, hence had no cause of action. He urged that the preliminary objection be sustained.

In response, the learned senior counsel to the appellants submitted that the appellants having shown their interest in the subject matter and shown that their rights have been threatened by the act of the respondent, have locus standi to institute this action.

Again, that the appellants did not sue as a corporate body of trustees but as trustees of the church. Finally, that the appellants had a cause of action when the respondent assumed office of the President of the church when he had no such assent. He urged this court to dismiss the entire objection of the respondent.

The appellants in their supporting affidavit to the originating summons contained at pages 6-11 demonstrated their interest in the presidency of the church, their grievances against the respondent and why they instituted the present suit, especially in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17 and 35. This to my mind suffices to arm them with locus standi to sue. It is crystal clear that there is a dispute between the appellants, the respondent and the church, that propelled the appellants to seek for redress in court since they could not handle it as brethren.