Jacob Ndaeyo v. Godwin Ogunaya (1977)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

C. IDIGBE, J.S.C.

The appellant is the defendant in an action in detinue heard and determined in the High Court of the former East Central (now Imo) state, holden at Owerri. During the Nigeria civil war the respondent (i.e. the plaintiff in these proceedings) lost a Heidelberg Printing Machine, the subject matter of the claim in these proceedings – in circumstances which according to him – quite possibly, amounted to stealing by a servant or a highway robbery.

The facts leading to the loss of the printing machine aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as “The Printing Machine”) are not only somewhat vague certainly indecisive on the issue of stealing or robbery but they are, however, not really material to the principal questions in this appeal; and these are whether these proceedings were commenced in the proper venue and, if not, whether they are invalid for want of jurisdiction in the trial Court.

Briefly, the facts in support of the respondent’s claim and which from the records do not appear to be in dispute are as follows. Just before the Federal troops took over Port Harcourt from the Rebel troops in May, 1968, during the Civil War the respondent began to evacuate his property – the subject matter of the claim in the case in hand inclusive – from Port Harcourt just under ten miles from Owerri (now the Capital of Imo Sate and the situs of the court of trial) at a village known as Mgbirichi, the lorry conveying the respondent’s property from Port Harcourt to his hometown, beyond Owerri broke down and in the interval between the search for motor mechanics and the repair of the said lorry unknown persons removed the lorry and its contents from the sport where it had broken down.

Apart from the respondent’s evidence that neither his lorry nor the driver has since been found, nothing else is known of their the lorry or the driver. Soon after the civil war the Printing Machine was found in possession of the appellant; it was being used for the purpose of his business as a printer and publisher in his business premises at Uyo in the Cross River (formerly, South Eastern) state. On interrogation the appellant who, from the records, knew nothing of the facts leading up to, and the alleged incident at, Mgbirichi explained that the Printing Machine was recovered in Port Harcourt by the Abandoned Property Authority of the Rivers State who later sold the same to him.

A report by the respondent was lodged with the Police Authorities at Owerri who, carried out investigations and, subsequently visited the business premises of the appellant at Uyo from where they removed the Printing Machine into Owerri with a view to possible criminal court action against the appellant who had failed to produce to them a satisfactory receipt, of purchase of the same, from the Rivers State Abandoned Property Authority. Later, however, on the advice of the Imo State Ministry of Justice, the Police Authorities declined to take any criminal action in court advised the respondent to pursue his civil remedies, if he so desired. These proceedings were initiated in the High court by the respondent on the advice of his solicitor.

In the trial court the appellant by his counsel contended that the action was incompetent since the writ of summons in these proceedings should have been taken out at Port Harcourt; therefore, he submitted the High Court of Imo State (then East Central State) had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The learned trial Judge overruled the contention and objection of learned counsel for the appellant, entertained the claim and made an order in favour of the respondent. We will example, anon, in detail the contentions of the appellant, the decisions of the learned trial Judge and the reasons therefore.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the court of trial was raised by the appellant at a very early stage of the proceedings. Para 14 of the statement of defence reads:

“…… the Defendant will at the trial raise all legal and equitable defences open to him and in particular that the High Court at Owerri has

(1) No jurisdiction to entertain the trial by virtue of section 46(1) & (2) of the High Court Law of ……………. Eastern Nigeria and Order VII Rule 1 & 5

(2) That the determination of the ownership of the said Machine should be by the High Court of the Rivers State of Nigeria by virtue of Section 13 (3) of the Abandoned Property Edict No 8 of 1969”.

Dealing with the issue relating to the jurisdiction the learned trial Judge observed as follows:

“In his address learned counsel for the defendant contended that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case on two grounds, firstly that the defendant does not reside within the jurisdiction pursuant to the provision of section 22(1) of the High Court Law and secondly that the situs of the subject matter of the case is at Uyo which is also outside the Jurisdiction of this court vide order VII Rules I and IV of the High Court Rules.

In his reply the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that within the scope of order VII Rules I and IV supra the seizure was at Mgbirichi in 1968, and that the provisions of the Abandoned Property Edict would not be applicable on the ground that the Machine was not sold by the Authority to the defendant. The issue before this court is to determine which of the two disputants is the owner of the Machine Exh. “B”. There is no disputing the fact that the machine was bought by the plaintiff from R.T. Briscoe Nigeria Ltd. The agreement and receipts proved this. This is readily conceded by the defence which then says that the ownership has shifted unto the Abandoned Property Authority which then transferred it to the defendant by sale. On the evidence before me I do not hold that the plaintiff’s ownership ever shifted to the Abandoned Property. I am satisfied …………. ………………. That the machine was dismantled and removed from Port Harcourt in May, 1968, in a lorry which broke down at Mgbirichi and at which place the plaintiff became deprived of the machine ostensibly by stealing ………………….. ………………… I do not believe that the defendant ever bought the machine in dispute or any party therefore from the Abandoned Property Authority”