Chief John C. Uzokwe V. Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Limited (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling delivered on 18th July, 2005 by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja presided over by Hon. Justice Mohammed Dodo. The lower court having opined in the Ruling to the effect that the cause of action in the instant case and principal activities therein occurred in Kaduna, which is outside its jurisdiction, held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The court consequently disqualified itself on the ground of jurisdiction and struck out the case.

There are two Records of Appeal in this matter -(i) the main Record and (ii) the Supplementary Record. The Ruling of the lower court at pages 77-88 of the main Record was sequel to the filing on the 29th June, 2005 of a process headed “Preliminary Objection” dated 27th June, 2005 by the Defendant (now Respondent). The process is at page 49 of the main Record and the prayers set out therein read as follows: –

“1. An order striking out this suit on ground that the honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same; and/or

2. An order setting aside the Court processes in this suit inclusive of service thereof on the Defendant and directing on the principle of “forum conveniens” that the matter be filed, heard and/or tried in Kaduna, in the Kaduna Judicial Division of Kaduna State of Nigeria”

The suit the subject of this appeal was commenced by the plaintiff (now Appellant) before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja by the issuance of a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the 7th day of October, 2004. The Appellant however first procured the leave of the lower court to enable him serve all processes filed in respect of the case on the Respondent at its head office in Kaduna (being out of the jurisdiction of the lower court) before the aforementioned processes were served on the said Respondent. (See pages 1-3 and 15 respectively of the main Record). The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 25th February, 2005 but necessary order of court was procured to regularise the lateness in the filing of the said Statement of Defence. An Amended Statement of Defence was subsequently filed the necessary order of court in that regard having been duly procured. The Respondent never took objection to the lower court as being the proper venue for the trial of the instant case or the issues raised in the Appellant’s Statement of Claim in either the ” Statement of Defence or the Amended Statement of Defence. It was when the case was called for hearing on 24th May, 2005 that the Respondent for the first time; orally raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the case. Hearing was therefore adjourned to enable the Respondent file Its objection to the jurisdiction of the court. On 29th June, 2005 the Respondent duly filed the aforementioned application dated 27th June, 2005 seeking for the striking out of the instant action for want of jurisdiction.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the lower court, appealed against the same by a Notice of Appeal dated 28lh July, 2005 and filed on 29til July, 2005. The said Notice of Appeal

contains one ground of appeal. The said ground of appeal with its Particulars read thus: –

“1. That the learned trial judge, Hon. Justice Mohammed Dodo, erred or misdirected himself in Law when he held that

“All well said and done, it is the opinion of this Honourable Court that the cause of action and principal activities and action in this matter arose in Kaduna which is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. For these reasons I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at this stage.

In view of all the above having disqualified itself on the ground of jurisdiction it is hereby decreed that the matter is hereby struck out accordingly”.

And (sic) this led to a miscarriage of justice.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR OR MISDIRETION IN LAW

(a) The Court in coming to this “opinion” and decision did not properly consider that a cause of action

i) consists of every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.