Bishop Samson I. Okelezoh & Ors. V. Rev. Davi Izuage & Anor. (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMD, J.C.A.,

The respondents herein were the plaintiffs at the lower court. They sued the appellants in the Benin Judicial Division of the Edo State High Court claiming the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that as life trustees of the 5th defendant the 1st to 4th defendants have no right to exclude the plaintiffs from the lawful activities of the 5th defendant.

2. A declaration that as life trustees the plaintiffs are entitled to their remuneration/allowance due to them from the activities of the 5th defendant to date.

3. A declaration that the exclusion of the plaintiffs from the activities of the 5th defendant by the 1st to 4th defendants is illegal unconstitutional, null and void.

4. An order setting aside a document dated 11th of June, 1999 as the document was executed involuntarily under undue influence exerted on the 1st plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents or servants from interfering with the activities of the plaintiffs in the discharge of their duties in the 5th defendant.”

The plaintiffs then filed a motion ex-parte seeking the following:
“An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents by themselves, their agents servants, their church members from interfering with or disturbing the Plaintiffs/ Applicants in the performance of their church functions and duties in the Headquarters of the 5th Defendant/ Respondent at No. Perfection Close, off St. Saviour Road, Upper Sokponba Road, Benin City and its branches nationwide pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”

This motion ex-parte was heard and granted on 24/11/2000 pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice which was fixed for hearing on 15/1/2001. The defendants were not satisfied with the interim order, they therefore, filed a motion on notice on 27/11/2000 “praying for an order discharging the order of interim injunction made in this suit on 24th November, 2000 on the following grounds:
a) Fraudulent concealment and/or misrepresentation of material facts by the Plaintiffs/ Respondents;
b) Abuse of court process;
c) Lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ claim.”

After hearing arguments from both parties, the learned trial judge in his Ruling said:
“I hold that the applicants have not made out a case for which the interim order made on 24/11/2000 by this Honourable Court be discharged. In the result, this application fails and same is refused.”

Aggrieved with this decision, the defendants appealed to this Court. They filed five grounds of appeal. Without their particulars, the grounds of appeal read:
“1. The Learned trial judge erred in law when he held that there was no material concealment and/or misrepresentation of fact by the Plaintiffs/Respondents in obtaining the order of interim injunction.
2. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ action did not amount to abuse of judicial process.
3. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he failed to make pronouncement on his jurisdiction to make the interim order which was specifically raised before him.
4. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he failed to discharge the order of interim injunction which the Plaintiffs/Respondents failed to justify.
5. The ruling was against the weight of affidavit evidence before the trial court.”

The appellants filed their brief of argument. The respondents were served with the” appellants’ brief of argument. However, they failed or neglected to file the respondents’ brief of argument within the prescribed period. This prompted the appellants to file a motion to set the appeal for hearing on the appellants’ brief alone since the respondents have failed to file their brief. This was granted. Four issues were formulated in the appellants’ brief for the determination of the appeal.

The issues are:
“1. Whether or not the Respondents’ action did not conceal material facts from the trial court in their ex-parte application dated 9th November, 2000.
2. Whether or not the Respondents’ action did not in the circumstance of this case, amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
3. Whether the trial Court is vested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondents’ claim.
4. Was it right for the learned trial judge to decline to set aside his ex parte order of interim injunction?”

I will first start with the issue of jurisdiction, because jurisdiction is the sine qua non of the matter.
It is the authority vested in a court which gives the Court the power to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Whatever a court does without jurisdiction is a nullity.

At the hearing of the appeal, the respondents did not appear even though they were served. With the leave of the Court, the appellants were allowed to argue the appeal based on the appellants’ brief of argument. It was submitted in the appellants’ brief that jurisdiction was the bedrock upon which the court’s competence to adjudicate on a matter rested. It was so fundamental that an adjudicating court was required to resolve it before taking any step in the proceedings.