Buhari & Anor v. Adebayo & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

Parties

1. ALHAJI ABDULKAREEM LAARO BUHARI (Balogun Gambari of Ilorin)
2. ALHAJI BABA BUHARI

V.

1. ALHAJI MUHAMMAD ALIYU ADEBAYO
2. H.R.H ALHAJI IBRAH1M SULU GAMBARI(Emir of Ilorin)
3. ILORIN EMIRATE COUNCIL

Lead Judgment

ABUBAKAR, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Thisappeal stems from the interlocutory ruling of the Court of Appealsitting in Ilorin, delivered on the 27th day of February, 2014.

In the said judgment, the lower court upheld the decision of the trial court and held that the objection raised by the 2nd and 3rddefendants/respondents to the competence of the writ of summon was competent.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellantscommenced the action giving rise to this appeal in the High Court ofKwara State by a writ of summons dated 28th September, 2005. Thecase proceeded to trial, at the conclusion of trial, before judgmentwas delivered, the 2nd and 3rd respondents brought an applicationchallenging the competence of the suit on the ground that the suitwas commenced by a defective writ of summons because the writwas signed by a person unknown to law.

The learned trial judge inhis judgment struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction and held thatthe defective writ of summons robbed the court of its jurisdiction tohear and determine the matter. The appellants therefore appealed tothe Court of Appeal Ilorin Division, the lower court, which court ina unanimous decision dismissed the appellants’ appeal.

Dissatisfied therefore, the appellants further appealed to thiscourt via notice of appeal dated 7th March, 2014, containing 6grounds of appeal, learned counsel Kamaldeen B. Quadri, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, filed the appellant’s brief of argument onthe 15th day of August, 2014. Learned counsel for the appellantnominated three issues for determination, the issues are as follows;

1. Whether the question writ of summon was signedby a legal practitioner known to law having recordto the affidavit and documentary evidence on record(grounds 1, 2 and 3)

2. Whether the court of appeal had not misconstrued, mixedup and misapplied the two decisions of this Honorablecourt cited before it to wit; SLB Consortium v. NNPC(2013) 4 SCNJ 211, (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317and Ministry of Works and Transport Adamawa Statev. Yakubu Isiaku (2013) 1 SCNJ 211, (2013) 6 NWLR(Pt. 1351) 481 and whether the misconstruction,misapplication and mixed up by the Court of Appealof the decisions in the two cases have not led to a grossmiscarriage of justice in this appeal. (Grounds 4 and 5)

3. Whether a statement of claim properly endorsed andfiled with a writ of summons is capable of curing anydefects in the writ by the doctrine of supersession of astatement of claim over a writ. (Grounds 6)

The 1st respondent’s amended brief of argument was filed bylearned counsel Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, Esq. on the 5th day ofMarch, 2021, it was deemed as properly filed and served on the 21stday of November, 2021. In the brief of argument, learned counselnominated the following two issues for determination:

1. Whether the writ of summons that originated the actionat the High Court was properly signed as required byLaw.