Frozen Foods (Nig) Ltd & Ors v. Estate Of Oba John Agbola Ojomo & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Judicial Division, in appeal No. CA/PH/3/2008 delivered on the 14th day of July, 2009 allowing in part the appeal of these Respondents against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered on 22nd day of June, 2006 dismissing the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction.

The facts of the case which have now led to this appeal are that these Appellants, as plaintiffs, took out a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 1st August, 2005 against the Respondents and claimed as follows:

(1) An order directing the Defendants to render account of all moneys, rents and benefit whatsoever from all the properties of the Plaintiff’s Company namely: – Complete Sardine Canning Plant, located in Trans- Continental Fisheries Complex, Oshodi Apapa Expressway, Lagos;

All the Cold Room equipments for the 4,000 Ton Cold store including condensing units and evaporator at 57 Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, Port-Harcourt, rents collected from all tenants in the Warehouses at Plot 57 Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, Port-Harcourt and rent from tenants at 4 Bungalows at No. 8 Orominike Street, in Orominike Layout off Olu Obasanjo, Orominike Diobu, G.R.A Port-Harcourt, which they have received or are in their possession from 15th day of December, 1990 till Judgment is delivered.

(2) An order setting aside any appointment, removal and resignation of any Director made after 15th December, 1990 and before 6th May, 2004 as such appointment, removal and or resignation were made without proper procedure and consequently null and void.

Upon being served with the originating processes, the Respondents without filing their Statement of Defence, filed a Motion on Notice by way of preliminary objection on 20th October, 2005 wherein they challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit on the following grounds:

(i) This action is incompetent and this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same

(ii) The plaintiffs claim as pleaded in the statement of claim discloses no cause of action

(iii) The plaintiffs claim is statute barred

(iv) This suit is frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and constitutes an abuse of Court process.

Learned counsel on both sides put in their respective arguments for and against the preliminary objection after which the learned trial Judge, in a considered ruling delivered on 22nd day of June, 2006, struck out grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the preliminary objection for offending Order 26 Rule 6(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2000. The Court also dismissed the remaining ground 4 of the preliminary objection.

The conclusion of that ruling reads as follows: –
“In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the application to strike out the suit on grounds that it discloses no cause of action and is statute barred is premature. The defendants having not filed their statement of defence on that ground, objections are struck out. In respect of the ground that this suit constitute an abuse, I hold that same fails and the said ground (iv) is dismissed. Defendant is ordered to file his statement of defence within 30 days from today.”

Aggrieved by the decision, these Respondents as defendants, lodged an appeal at the Court below and raised two issues for determination as follows: