Hajia Aisha Buhari & Ors V. Haddy Smart Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

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

The Respondents in the instant appeal were the Plaintiffs in the action which they initiated against the Appellants (Defendants) at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The claims of the Respondents as endorsed on the Writ of Summons read: “The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as per the Statement of Claim”, Paragraph 38 of the Statement of Claim wherein the claims of the Respondents are set out reads: –

“Whereof the plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs:

(1) An order giving vacant possession of wing A of the first floor and wings A & B of the 2nd floor of the property known as Prime Plaza and situated at plot 1012 Ademola Adetokumbo Crescent, Wuse II, which the 1st Defendant holds of him and occupied by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the Plaintiffs.

(2) The sum of N5,335,155.00 being the balance of the arrears of rent and service charges from 1st January, 2004 – 31st December, 2004.

(3) The sum of N27,664,000.00 being the arrears of rent and 15% services charges owed the Plaintiffs by the Defendants from January 1st, 2005 – October 2007.

(4) Manse (sic) profit and service charge at the rate of N832,000,00 per month from the date of filing this action till the date possession is given to the Plaintiffs.

(5) 10% interest on the judgment sum, from the date of judgment to the date of final liquidation of the judgment debt.

(6) An order directing the defendants to reinstate the spaces they occupied to the tenantable condition they were before they took over possession and reconstructed them.

(7) The cost of this action.”

The Appellants as Defendants entered a conditional appearance to the action of the Respondents. This is on page 72 of the Record. They also filed a joint Statement of Defence and therein questioned or challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the action. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the lower court, was predicated on the following (i) that the action is fundamentally defective and grossly incompetent as the Respondents severally and/or jointly have no locus standi to maintain the same against them (i.e. the Defendants/Appellants); and (ii) that the Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and the suit is vexatious, frivolous and abuse of court process. As indicated in the Statement of Defence, the Defendants/Appellants duly applied to set the issues of law raised therein down for hearing as preliminary points of law vide the motion on notice at page 87 of the record.

The motion in question was brought pursuant to Order 22 Rule 2(1), (2), (3) and (4) and Order 23 Rules 20 (A) and (6) of the High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja Civil Procedure Rules 2004 and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court. The Defendants/Appellants sought for an Order striking out the Statement of Claim and dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The grounds of the application as set out in the motion read:-

(i) The service of the Originating Summons (sic) is incurably bad and fundamentally defective because there was noncompliance with the provisions to indorse the mode, date of service and signature of the process server on the Writ of Summons and Order 4 Rule 8(1) and 11 Rule 31.

(ii) The Plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this proceedings as there is neither Landlord/Tenant relationship between the 1stPlaintiff and the Defendants nor is their (sic) a valid instrument of authorisation in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff to maintain this action.