Hyginus Ogunede & Ors V. Luke Anajuba & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Suit, the subject matter of this Appeal was instituted by Writ of Summons filed on the 14th of February, 2005 in which the Respondents (plaintiffs in the lower Court) claimed against the Appellants (Defendants in the lower Court) some declaratory reliefs, forfeiture, recovery, and perpetual injunction Pages 1-4 of the Record of Appeal.

This Appeal is against the judgment of Hon. Justice J. I. NWEZE, delivered on the 2nd day of December 2013, at the High Court of Anambra State, Ihiala judicial Division, holden at Ihiala in suit No HIH/10/2005.

The plaintiffs (Respondents in this appeal) at the trial called 5 (five) witnesses and tendered five exhibits. The defendants (Appellants in this appeal) called 7 (seven) witnesses and tendered Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D4.

After the trial, the learned trial judge found for the Respondents as per the claim.

The Appellants are dissatisfied with the decision of the Lower Court and have appeal it. And pursuant to the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court, filed a Notice of Appeal on the 16th of December 2013 Pages 448-464

1

of the Record of Appeal.

They however filed an amended Notice of Appeal and Grounds of Appeal on the 26th of March, 2015 encapsulating 17 (seventeen) Grounds of Appeal.

The Appellants filed an amended Appellants brief of Argument on the 26th of March, 2015. It is settled by O.J Nnadi Esq. SAN. The Respondents filed an amended Respondents brief of Argument on the 2nd of April, 2015. It is settled by Chief I.O. Anize.

On the 10th of October, 2016, the parties adopted their respective briefs of Argument.

The Appellants had distilled six issues for determination from the 17 (seventeen) Grounds of Appeal in their amended Appellants brief of Argument.

(1) Whether the trial, leading to the judgment of the Court below based on a statement of claim not signed by the Legal Practitioner whose name appeared immediately after the signature but signed for the Legal Practitioner by an unknown person who did not disclose his name as Legal Practitioner or as one of the Plaintiffs is not null, void and vitiated by lack of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit (Ground 17 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

(2) Whether the trial Court was right