Bishop Paul Akpan Augustine V. Bishop Eyo Inueikim Hogan & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the interlocutory decision of A. O. Ajakaiye, J. delivered on the 10th March, 2006 at the Federal High Court, Calabar.

On the 4th May, 2005, in Suit No. FHC/CA/CS/25/2005, the Respondents as Plaintiffs before the lower court issued an originating summons against the Defendant (now Appellant) in which the following question was submitted for determination:

“Whether having regard to the Constitution and Bye Laws of the Mount Zion Lighthouse Full Gospel Church Inc. as amended in 1993, the Defendant is qualified to be the President of the Mount Zion Lighthouse Full Gospel Church Inc?”

The Defendant (Appellant herein) through his Counsel filed a memorandum or appearance in protest on 11/5/2005 and followed it up with a Notice of preliminary objection on 12/5/2005 to the “hearing and adjudication of the suit” and urged the court to dismiss or strike out same for being grossly incompetent on the following grounds:

1) The action of the Plaintiffs is grossly incompetent and the court cannot entertain same because the Plaintiffs purporting to act as Registered Trustees of Mount Zion Lighthouse Full Gospel Church Inc. which is a corporate entity must file a Resolution of the Governing Council of the Church authorizing the action to be initiated or commenced against the Defendant as a condition precedent to give the court jurisdiction to hear or adjudicate on the matter.

2) Bishop Eyo Inueikim Hogan and Nyong Davies Ayakndue now suing as 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs having participated in the Election of the Defendant as a Trustee of the Church and selection as Vice President and subsequently President of the Church cannot sustain or maintain an action or join with other person or persons to sue seeking the Declaration sought in the Originating Summons particularly as the 2nd Plaintiff Bishop Nyong Davies Ayakndue was appointed by the Defendant as the Vice President of the Organization and he accepted and acted and still acts in that capacity.

3) Bishop Jacob Brown Udobang the 3rd Plaintiff having amicably settled with the Church in Suit Number FHC/IB/CS/69/95 at the Federal High Court Ibadan and Court of Appeal Ibadan in Appeal No. CA/I/76/97 as a result of which he withdrew his Caveat against the Registration of the Defendant as Trustee of the Church cannot turn round to sue the Defendant seeking the Declaration contained in the Originating Summons as couched particularly as he, Bishop Jacob Udobang took advantage of the settlement and returned to the church after 12 (twelve years) of suspension/Ex-communication from the Church.

4) The 3rd Plaintiff Bishop Jacob Udobang is not designated as a Registered Trustee in the Constitution of the church which is exhibited to the Originating Summons as Exhibit A. The five (5) Registered Trustees of the Church therein being Arc Bishop A. B. U. Akpabio, Bishop S. E. Uquah, Rev. E. I. Hogan, Bishop N. D. Ayakndue and Bishop E. E. Okon and cannot maintain or sustain the action envisaged in the Originating Summons with other Trustees or at all;

5) It is an act of bad faith and contrary to the spirit and intent purport of justice and adjudication capable of affecting the competence and jurisdiction of the court for the Plaintiffs who have previously amicably settled their dispute against the Defendant in Suit No: GHC/CA/CS/59/2004 with the permission and consent of this court as presently constituted to bring this action and seek the claims as couched in the Originating Summons before the same court.

6) The Plaintiffs do not have the capacity to sue in their personal names while also stating in bracket as Registered Trustees for Mount Zion Lighthouse Full Gospel Church Inc. without violating Corporate Rule.

On the 10th day of March, 2006 the learned Judge of the Federal High Court, Calabar, Ajakaiye J. delivered a Ruling on the preliminary

“Having thus said, it is my considered view that the suit is properly presented as it is. It is competent and in no way vitiated by the irregularity. I hold therefore that the preliminary objection is not sustainable. It is accordingly dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with the above ruling, the Defendant/Appellant filed a Notice and Grounds of Appeal on 20/3/2006. The three Grounds of Appeal devoid of their particulars are as follows: