Media Techniques Nigeria Limited V. Alhaji Lam Adesina (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal from the ruling of Sanda, J. of the High Court of Justice, sitting in Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered on the 1st day of August, 2002.

The ruling is sequel to the preliminary objection raised by the defendant as to the validity of the writ of summons of the plaintiff on the non-inclusion of the place of abode of the plaintiff on the endorsement on the said writ of summons and the legality of the plaintiff’s writ of summons in maintaining an action against the defendant, while he was the Executive Governor of Oyo State. On 29th November, 2001, when the action in point was initiated.

The endorsement on the writ of summons filed by the plaintiff reads:
“The plaintiff claims against the defendant as follows:
(i) The sum of One hundred million naira as damages for libel published by the defendant on page 20 in the City People Magazine issue of 10th October, 2001, and concerning the plaintiff under the headline “Aide swindles Gov. Lam Adesina”.

(ii) An injunction restraining the defendant whether by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory of the plaintiff.”

This endorsement is in pari materia with the reliefs set out in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim filed on the same day as the writ of summons.

Argument of counsel on preliminary objection and the objection to it were canvassed on the 1st day of August, 2002 and the learned Judge delivered his ruling immediately afterwards.

He held, inter alia:
“In the totality, the objection of the defendant/applicant is overruled. The plaintiff in person of the Governor of Oyo State, Hon. Lamidi Adesina is competent to institute the action which is now to go to trial…”

As regards the non-inclusion of the plaintiff’s place of abode on the endorsement on the writ of summons, the learned Judge held:
“I think this is a mere irregularity which the law permits him to amend on payment and costs. I now order the learned Counsel for the plaintiff amends (sic) that space provided for the place of abode of the plaintiff with N1,000.00 cost.”

The defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed a notice of appeal containing three grounds.
The defendant now appellant distilled the following issues from the grounds of appeal for the determination of this appeal:
“A. Whether it is proper for the learned Judge to grant the plaintiff a relief that was not sought by the plaintiff.

B. Whether the default of a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of summons can be treated as an irregularity that is correctable at the instance of the learned Judge.

C. Whether in the light of S.308 (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, together with the available jurisprudence in that behalf, it is proper for the learned Judge to have held that the plaintiff can maintain an action against the defendant in circumstances as to making consequential compellable orders against the plaintiff.”

The plaintiff now the respondent, identified the following issues for the determination of the appeal:
“(1) Whether the trial Judge was right in treating the failure to insert the place of abode of the respondent in the endorsements to the writ a mere irregularity insufficient to vitiate the writ in its entirety.

(2) Whether the trial Judge was right in directing that the exact place of abode of the respondent be inserted in the space provided on the writ of summons.