Ogbuagu Saint Anthony Anozia Onowu V. Ogbuagu Hbc. Ogboko & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Imo State in Suit No. HOG/82/2008, delivered by Hon. Justice P.C. Ikpeama, on 29/6/2009, wherein the trial Judge dismissed Appellant’s application for committal of the Respondents to prison and also dismissed the Respondents’ Preliminary objection, filed on 19/3/2009, challenging the Jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the Suit.

Being dissatisfied with the Ruling, Appellant appealed, as per the Notice of Appeal on pages 61 to 62 of the Records of Appeal, compiled by Appellant, with the leave of this Court, granted on 18/10/2010. The Respondents also cross-appealed.

Appellant filed his brief of argument on 20/10/2010 and distilled three (3) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, namely:

“(1) Whether the procedure for commencement of proceedings for contempt ex-facie curiae is not via the application per Form 49 in accordance with Order 9 Rule 13 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules

(2) Whether the requirement of charge and arraignment is not only consequential to Issuance of Form 49 and

service thereof and on the initiative of the Court.

(3) Whether Services of Forms 48 and 49 by the same means of substituted service as ordered by the Court of the writ and statement of claim and all other processes on this Suit does not meet the justice of this case with regard to service.”

Appellant did not attempt to relate the issues to the grounds of appeal, but since the grounds of appeal are three as the issues are, it can be presumed the 3 Issues flowed serially from the 3 grounds of appeal.

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the appeal on pages 2 to 9 of their brief of argument, filed on 7/4/11, saying the three (3) grounds of appeal are incompetent, having complained against the failure of Lower Court to punish the Respondents for disobedience of its order because the Appellant failed to comply with the laid down procedure.

The Respondents also distilled 2 Issues for determination of the appeal, namely:

“(1) Whether the Appellant had substantially compiled with the procedure for the commencement and Issuance of contempt proceedings against the Respondents?

(2) Whether the Appellant could rely on the

order for substituted service made on 13/8/08 for the purpose of the contempt proceedings.?