Owodunni & Ors V. The Regd. Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

Suit NO.HCL/33/00 that gave birth to this appeal was commenced by the Respondent against the Appellants at the Ilaro Division of the Ogun State High Court. On taking out the writ on 18/12/2000, the Respondent filed an Exparte Motion seeking the following reliefs:

“1. AN ORDER granting leave to the Plaintiff to issue and serve the Writ of Summons and all other processes in the matter all the 1st Defendant in Lagos outside the Jurisdiction of the High Court of Ogun State.

2. AN ORDER of substituted service of all the processes of court and orders in this matter on the Defendants by affixing the same to the gates/doors or some other conspicuous places at the last known addresses of the Defendant.
3. AN ORDER granting leave to the Plaintiff to serve all processes of court and orders in this matter on the Defendants within the time limited for the appearance of the Defendants.
4. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from the use or calling of “President” of the Celestial Church of Christ Worldwide or of any Parish or Committee of the Church pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herewith.
5. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from the continued usurpation or acting in the capacity of Pastor of the Celestial Church of Christ pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herewith.
6. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from parading himself as the Pastor’s representative (Shepherd) at the Ijeshatedo Parish of the Celestial Church of Christ pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herewith.
7. AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from acting as the Shepherd-In-Charge of the Imeko I Parish and/or as Shepherd of any other Parish or as Evangelist of the Imeko District of the Celestial Church of Christ pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herewith.
8. AN ORDER of interim-injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, servants or privies by whatever name called from building or continuing to build on land belonging to the plaintiff without their consent or from entering into any of the Parishes of the Celestial Church of Christ at Imeko pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed herewith”.

Respondent was obliged, on being heard, all the reliefs it prayed the court. This was on 19/12/2000.

By a further application on Notice, the Respondent also sought the Court’s Order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Appellant from the use of the words “President of the Celestial Church of Christ”. It was sequel to this application that the Appellants filed a preliminary objection dated 18th January 2001 praying the court to adjudge the action instituted by the Respondent an abuse of its process calculated to vex and annoy them. The Appellants in a second preliminary objection dated 31st January 2001, prayed the court to dismiss the action commenced by the Respondent in its entirety on the grounds that the Respondent as Plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the action.

Arguments in respect of the two preliminary objections were jointly heard. In a considered ruling dated 2nd August 2001, the court held that Respondent had the locus standi to institute the suit against the Appellants and that the suit as constituted was not an abuse of its process.

Appellants being dissatisfied with the decisions of the lower court dated 19th December, 2000 and 2nd August 2001 respectively have appealed against both. The appeal against the lower court’s ruling dated 2nd August 2001 is appeal No.CA/I/193/01, while Appeal No.CA/I/210/01 pertains the lower court’s ruling of 19th December 2000.

APPEAL NO.CA/I/193/01

The three issues formulated in the Appellants’ brief for the determination of appeal No. CA/I/193/01 are:-

“1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in law and considering the circumstances of the case have come to a conclusion that the filing of 3 (three) Suits for same prayers that were earlier granted and/or refused did not amount to an abuse of the courts process.

2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right on holding that the Plaintiff (herein Respondent) is not bound to obtain the Consent/authority of the Pastor (being one of the Trustees) before the institution of this suit. Alternately, whether the plaintiff had the Locus Standi to institute the action.
3. Whether the failure of the trial court to invite Counsel to address it on a legal point raised suo motu by the court amounted to a breach of fair hearing of the Appellants. The Respondent’s brief contains three issues on the basis of which this court is urged to determine Appeal No.CA/I/193/01. The issues read:-

“1. Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that Suits

(1) AB/169/99: The Registered Trustees of The Celestial Church of Christ Vs. Owodunni and

(2) HIL/28/2000: The Registered Trustees of The Celestial Church of Christ Vs. Josiah Kayode Owodunni had been properly withdrawn and discontinued before the institution of Suit No.HCL/33/2000: The Registered Trustees of The Celestial Church of Christ Vs. Josiah Kayode Owodunni & 4 Ors.

2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the Right to sue and be sued under S. 691 (1) of the Companies And Allied matters Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 is not qualified.
3. Whether the Appellants right to fair hearing was breached by the trial court on the question of demurer procedure adopted by the Defendants/Appellants.

Under Appellants’ 1st issue, Learned Counsel referred to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit in support of the Appellant’s preliminary objection dated 18th January 2001 and contends that from the facts deposed to in the paragraphs, the instant suit is a duplication of suits No.AB/169/99 and HCL/28/2000. Parties, issues and the reliefs canvassed, obtained and or refused in the earlier suits are the same with those sought in the instant suit No.HCL/33/2000. The institution of the subsequent suit, Learned Appellants Counsel further argues, was a ploy to interfere with the due administration of justice which the lower court, on the authority of SARAKI Vs. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188-189; ONUOHA Vs. N.B.N LTD. (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 636) 621, should have forestalled. The intention of the Respondent, Learned Counsel submits, was to frustrate the Appellants with the subsequent reckless, frivolous and vexatious action that resulted in tremendous inconvenience and iniquities to the Appellants. Relying further on a plethora of judicial authorities including EXPO LTD. Vs. PAFAB ENTERPRISES LTD. (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.591) 449 at 462- 463; DOMA Vs. ADAMU (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 598) 311 at 315; OLUTINRIN Vs. AGAKA (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 366 at 375, Learned Appellants’ Counsel urges that this issue be resolved against the Respondent.