Dr. Emeruche Kalu Nto & Anor V. Global Soap & Detergent Ind. Ltd. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBANA, J.C.A. (Delivering the lead Judgment)

The claimant (now Respondent) claimed the sum of N1,232,012.24 (One Million, two hundred and thirty two thousand, twelve naira twenty four kobo) as per its writ of summons, filed on 28/4/2006 being balance due to it for supply of its products to the defendants (now Appellants).

The Defendants, on the other hand, counter-claimed against the claimant for the sum of One Million Three Hundred and Eighty five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven Naira Twenty Nine kobo (N1,395,957.29).

But in their statement of defence, the Defendants raised a preliminary point of law, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on grounds of locus standi and the court, in compliance with the Rules, set the same down for hearing. Both parties submitted their written addresses on the preliminary point of law. The court, however, declined to rule on the issue and rather opted to hear the case in full, that is, the court put the preliminary objection “on hold until the full hearing and determination of the substantive suit and Counter-claim therein.”

It was the opinion of the learned chief Judge that, since the Defendants, despite their preliminary objections on the jurisdiction of the court and venue of trial, had gone ahead to counter-claim in the matter, it was wise to hear the case in full.

That is the decision the Appellants appealed against, being aggrieved. They filed their Notice and grounds of appeal on 6/8/2007, disclosing six grounds of appeal as follows (pages 53 to 55 of the Records):

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. ERROR-IN-LAW

The learned Trial Judge erred in Law when he declined to determine the Application of the Defendants/Appellants questioning the locus standi of the Plaintiff on the ground that he cannot at;

“this early stage determine whether the court lacks jurisdiction or not… until the full facts of the case has been highlighted in the course of hearing of this case”

PATICULARS OF ERROR

(a)The court conceded that the parties have filed all the requisite court Processes

(b)To resolve the issue of locus standi the court only need to look at the statement of claim, affidavit evidence and exhibits before the court. It is not the law that hearing has to be commenced before the court can determine the issue of locus standi:-

II. ERROR-IN-LAW

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he postponed the determination of the question of whether the Claimant have (sic) locus standi or not on the ground that issue of jurisdiction can be