Nigerian Institute Of Medical Research v. Prince Olusunmade Akin-olugbade & Ors (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

Introduction: This appeal arose from a suit filed by the present respondents, then plaintiffs, at the Lagos State High Court on 25/5/95 claiming from the current appellant, then defendant, possession of six flats situate at 27 Modupe Street, Fola Agoro Somolu, Lagos, mesne profit and/or damages for use and occupation from 1st April, 1995 till the appellant vacates the premises.

The trial court, on 7/11/03, entered judgment against the appellant. The appellant subsequently filed a motion before the trial court urging the court to set aside the judgment for want of jurisdiction. The application was also denied.

The appellant appealed both the judgment and the ruling to the court below.

The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal in a considered judgment delivered on 4/7/06 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and ruling of the trial court.

The lower court had earlier struck out the reply brief led by the appellant and determined the appeal only on the appellant’s and the respondents) briefs of argument.

The appellant initiated the present appeal by notice of appeal filed on 15/7/06. The appellant filed its brief of argument on 30/1/08 and a reply brief on 28/04/08. Both briefs were deemed properly filed on 5/11/2024. The respondents on their part filed a respondent’s amended brief of argument on 8/4/09 which was also deemed properly filed on 5/11/2024.

Submissions of parties

Appellant’s submissions

The appellant’s brief of argument was settled by O. E. Abang, Esq. He submitted two issues for the determination of this appeal, to wit:

1. “Whether the court below was right in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction in entertaining this suit.
2. Whether the appellant was denied fair hearing when the court below discountenanced its reply brief before judgment was delivered.

On issue 1, the appellant argued that following the ruling in NEPA v. Edegbero (2003) 9 WRN 1 once an agency of Federal Government of Nigeria is a party whether sued as a defendant or suing as the plaintiff, the only court that has jurisdiction to entertain the claim is the Federal High Court.

Appellant counsel further argued that by virtue of section 251 subsection (1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution, where the Federal Government of Nigeria or any of its agencies is a party to a suit, it is not the nature of the claim as endorsed on the writ of summons or averred in the statement of claim that determines whether or not Federal High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. He cited The Minister of Works & Housing v. Shittu (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 351 at 374.

Appellant’s counsel argued that the cases of Trade Bank Plc v. Benilux (Nig) Ltd (2003) 39 WRN 39, Onuorah v. KRPC (2005) 16 WRN 1 and Nkuma v. Odili (2006) 29 WRN 1 which the lower court relied on to dismiss the appeal were distinguishable from the facts of this case and from NEPA v. Edegbero (supra) which is the authority that denies the trial court jurisdiction to try this case.

On issue 2, the appellant’s counsel argued that the lower court erred in law in striking out its reply brief which was filed about six months after the service of the respondent’s brief of argument. He quoted Order 6 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002 which states thus: