Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Okey Kanu for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">J. C. Ikedieze, Senior State Counse, Abia State Ministry of Justice, for the Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#6C7274;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On the 15<sup>th</sup> day of April 2016 when this matter came up for hearing of a preliminary objection filed by the Defendants herein, challenging the jurisdiction of this court, Counsel for the Claimant applied and urged the Court to consider the Preliminary Objection of the Defendants during the final judgment of the Court in order to accommodate a defence available to the Claimant. In other words, the court should proceed to trial and then consider the Defendants’ Preliminary Objection alongside the facts of the case its final decision. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel on both sides raised arguments, and subsequently, this court granted them leave to file addresses as regards the point being raised by Counsel as to whether the court can defer the hearing of a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction where one has been raised.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Parties complied accordingly and filed addresses. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to Counsel for the Claimant, this application was sequel to an earlier Ruling/Judgment of this Court delivered on 21<sup>st</sup> January 2016 in Suit No. NICN/OW/108/2014 in the case of BARR. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">OKECHUKWU UDENSI KANU vs. GOVERNMENT OF ABIA STATE & 4 ORS (unreported), wherein the Court refused to consider one of the defences of the Claimant/Respondent to the Preliminary Objection on the ground that at that stage of the ruling on the Preliminary Objection (i.e before taking evidence), the Court was concerned with the competence or the suit and not the liability of the Defendants/Applicants. The defence was that the Defendants/Applicants acted outside the colour of their offices in prematurely retiring the Claimant/Respondent from the Civil Service of Abia State and in violation of the Abia State Public Service Rules and the terms of his employment. According to Counsel, the instant case has a similar defence; hence the application of Counsel for the Claimant/Respondent. To Counsel for the Claimant, the Defendants/Applicants’ prayer that the Court should consider the Preliminary <br> Objection first, has the implication of the Court ignoring or shutting out the Claimant/Respondent from the defence available to him. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel raised the following issues for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(a) Whether this Court has discretion on the stage at which to consider a Preliminary Objection and in relation to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(b) Whether this Court has the mandate to do substantial justice but not technical justice. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(c) Whether the Defendants/Applicants will suffer any miscarriage of justice or will be prejudiced if their Preliminary Objection is considered during the final judgment of this Court. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In arguing the first issue, Counsel for the Claimant submitted that every </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">court of</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:68%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">law is imbued with inherent powers and discretion in the conduct of matters before it and as guided by the principles of justice and fairness. In other words, the Court has the powers and discretion to regulate its proceedings unless otherwise expressly stated in the Law or Rules guiding the proceedings of the Court or where there is a binding case law on the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Counsel relied on the case of <b>ALIYU vs. ALMU (2013) LPELR-21857 (CA) </b>where<b> "discretion" </b></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">was defined as <b>" ... </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">the Judge's assessment of what is <u>fair and just</u> to do in a particular </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">case". He referred also to the authorities of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">NGWU vs. ONOH </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">(2006) All FWLR (Pt. 303) 303 at 375; IWUJI vs. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER FOR ESTABLISHMENT (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 497 at 517; OKAFOR vs. UCHEDI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 122) 188</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">. Counsel cited the case of ONOVO & ORS vs. MBA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23035, where the Supreme Court defined "discretion" as "equitable decision of what is <u>just and proper</u> under the circumstances or <u>liberty or privilege</u> to decide and act in accordance with what is <u>fair and equitable under the peculiar case guided by the principle of law</u>". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the submission of Counsel that in exercising such discretion, the courts are enjoined to do so judicially and judiciously. According to him, "Judicially" according to the Supreme Court per Adekeye JSC in <b>UBN PLC vs. ASTRA BUILDERS (W.A.) LTD (2010) LPELR-3383 (SC)</b> means " ... the power exercised in official capacity in a manner which appears to be <u>just and proper under a given situation</u>". He also cited the Black Law Dictionary 8<sup>th</sup> edition’s definition of "judicious" as being "Well-considered; discreet; wisely circumspect". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel cited the case of <b>ERONINI vs. IHEUKO (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 46 at 60- 61</b>, where the Supreme Court had this to say in relation to the phrase “judicial and judicious" in relation to the exercise of the Court's judicial discretion as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> "Acting judicially imports a consideration of the interest of both sides and weighing them in order to arrive at a <u>just and fair </u>decision. Judicious means: <u><o:p></o:p></u></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(a) proceeding from or showing sound judgment; <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(b) having or exercising sound judgment <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>(c) marked by discretion, wisdom and good sense </i>". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">He proceeded to submit that in the instant case, the Court is faced with the two options of either giving its Ruling/Judgment on the Preliminary Objection before taking evidence thereby shutting the Claimant/Respondent from a defence available to him. Alternatively, it is for the Court to rule on the Preliminary Objection during the final judgment and after taking evidence thereby considering all the defences available to the Claimant/Respondent. Thus, the necessary consideration in the light of the foregoing premises is for the Court to now determine in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case what is fair and just. In doing so, the Court will be guided by what the parties will gain or lose if either option is adopted. If the first option is adopted (i.e ruling on the Preliminary Objection before taking evidence) the Defendants/Applicants will lose nothing, but the Claimant/Respondent will lose or be denied a defence available to him which invariably leads to denial of justice and fair hearing in view of the disposition of this Court in the earlier cited case of <b>BARR. OKECHUKWU UDENSI KANU vs. GOVERNMENT OF ABIA STATE & 4 ORS (SUPRA)</b>. If the second option is adopted (i.e taking evidence and considering the Preliminary Objection during the final judgment) the Defendants/Applicants will still lose nothing, while the Claimant/Respondent would have been given an opportunity of being heard on that particular line of defence. Counsel therefore submitted that the latter approach will meet the justice of the instant case pursuant to the "just" and "fair" guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is Counsel’s further submission that another guide to </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 88%;mso-bidi-language:HE">this Honourable Court is as to the weight of the defence of the Claimant/Respondent that may be shut out and its likely impact on the instant case. The second Relief sought by the Claimant/Respondent in his Amended Claim is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">"2. A DECLARA TION that the Defendants' Circular No. HAS.S.0074/II/91 of 1<sup>st</sup> August, 2011 which sought to cut short the Claimant's employment by prematurely retiring him is ultra vires, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever" <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to Counsel, this relief is weighty enough because if the Court finds that the Defendants/Applicants had no power to enact the said Circular, it means that that action is a nullity <i>ab initio, </i>This is because you can't place something on nothing and expect it to stand; it will fall pursuant to the decision in <b>UAC vs. MCFOY</b>. Thus, if the action of the Defendants/Applicants is a nullity <i>ab initio, </i>it means that the Preliminary Objection has no legs to stand on. And in a case or <i>ultra vires </i>act, it is not susceptible to any statute of limitation such as the Public Officers (Protection) Act/Law being an illegality, nullity, void and non-existent act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:88%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel cited the case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:136%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">ORS (2012) LPELR-14326 (CA)</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> where </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:88%;mso-bidi-language: HE">the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:71%;mso-bidi-language:HE">1<sup>st</sup> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 88%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Respondent in </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:71%;mso-bidi-language: HE">1991 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:88%;mso-bidi-language:HE">revoked a land belonging to the Appellant for overriding public interest. It </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">was in 2009 (i.e 18 years after) that the Appellant filed the suit against the revocation. The Respondents raised a Preliminary Objection to the suit contending that it was statute barred. The lower Court upheld the objection. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation was a complete nullity as the Respondents had no power to revoke a land belonging to the Federal Government or any of its agencies such as the Appellant; hence the suit was not caught up by the Limitation Law of Kwara State. According to the Court of Appeal, the revocation was tainted with illegality and inconsistent with Section 49( I) or the Land Use Act and therefore incapable of being protected by the Public Officers (Protection) Law of Kwara State. The Court or Appeal pursuant to numerous decided authorities held that the Public Officers (Protection) Act and the Limitation Law of Kwara State will not protect the Respondents, having acted beyond their powers and in utmost bad faith. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 109%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Also in an earlier case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">ISIAK MOYOSORE vs. THE GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE, & ORS. (2011) LPELR-8813 (CA) </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 91%;mso-bidi-language:HE">which was also on an illegal act of revocation, Ita Mbaba JCA</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">admonished thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">"But while trying to ensure that </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">free channel remains for genuine complaints to be raised against unnecessary or hopeless/frivolous litigations, meant to stress the limits of the Court’s powers, care must be taken by the Court (which also is expected to be vigilant to guard its jurisdiction jealously) to refuse any ploy by the defendant to shortchange the plaintiff and deny him access to redress on frivolous challenge of jurisdiction. Thus, the Defendant's penchant for throwing the punch of lack of jurisdiction, should not be allowed to provide a cover or bunker for him to hide away from justice, or stay there to continue his mischief against the claimant/plaintiff". <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">Counsel cited the case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 699) 1087 </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">where such Preliminary Objection was raised, where the Supreme Court held that: </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">"the defence is not available to the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant where such allocation (sic: allegation) of continuing damage or injury has been raised. In such a situation, there is need for the trial court to take evidence before determining the point </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">..”</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">To counsel, this clearly shows that based on good reason and in the interest of justice, the court can consider the Preliminary Objection after taking evidence. Thus, it is purely a judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice.</span> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">It is Counsel’s further submission that t</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">he Rules of this Court did not make any provision as to the particular stage in the proceedings a Preliminary Objection should be considered. All that we have on the issue is rule of practice which enjoins that such should be considered at the early stage of the proceedings. The only reason for this admonition is to avoid the Court wasting its judicial time if at the end of the proceedings the Preliminary Objection succeeds. However, this rule of practice is subject to the interest of justice as determined by the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This explains why the Court in the exercise of its discretion in <b>ONOVO & ORS vs. MBA & ORS (SUPRA) </b>is said to have "...<b>. Iiberty or privilege to decide and act in accordance with what is fair and equitable under the peculiar case guided by the principle of law". </b>Thus in <b>UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE & ORS (SUPRA) </b>and<b> </b><b>ISIAK </b><b>MOYOSORE vs. THE GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE & ORS (SUPRA) </b>the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the lower court on Preliminary Objections where the facts showed that the Respondents had no powers <i>ab initio </i>to do what they did. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing the second issue, counsel answered in the affirmative, the question as to whether this court has the mandate to do substantial justice rather than technical justice. He cited the case of <b>ABUBAKAR & ORS vs. YARADUA </b>& <b>5 ORS (2008) LPELR-51 (SC), </b>where<b> N</b>iki Tobi, JSC had this to say: </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">"I am in entire agreement with the Court of</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> <i>Appeal when the Court held that full opportunity should be given to parties in the interest of justice without due regard to technicalities. Gone are the days when Courts of law were only concerned with doing only technical and abstract justice based on legalism. We are now in days when Courts of law do substantial justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case." </i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">He cited further, the case of <b>MONYE vs. ABDULLAHI (2012) LPELR-20103 (CA) </b>where<b> </b>Oredola JCA had this to say: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> "Courts of law have long moved away from the dormain or terrain of doing technical justice to doing substantial justice. This is because technical justice, in reality, is no justice but a pretentious caricature. It is justice with a question mark and not justice which is synonymous with the principles of</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> <i>equity and fair play", <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">To counsel, i</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">n the instant case, it will be technical justice and sheer legalism to insist on considering the objection before evidence and deny the Claimant/Respondent a defence which otherwise will be available to him, <br> especially where such a defence has the likelihood of success. As stated earlier, the Defendants/Applicants absolutely have nothing to lose at any stage the Preliminary Objection is considered. On the other hand, the <br> Claimant/Respondent has all to lose if the intended defence is not considered, thereby denying him justice and fair hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">He went on that t</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">he interest of justice overrides every other consideration in a judicial process. Moreover, our Courts are currently enjoined to depart from doing technical justice to doing substantial justice. Thus, the general rule that a Preliminary Objection be taken before delving into the substantive suit has an exception where the interest of justice is involved. The interest of justice entails not shutting out the Claimant/Respondent from a defence which otherwise would be available to him. The only reason given for the desire to consider the objection at an early stage is in order not to waste the judicial time of the court in going into the substantive suit if the Preliminary Objection succeeds. What of where it fails? No</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:148%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">such time will be wasted. Also, this requirement is not statutory or found in the Rules of this Honourable Court, but emanated from practice and only for the reason given above. On the whole, substantial justice demands that this Preliminary Objection be considered with the final judgment and after taking evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In arguing the third issue, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">counsel answered in the negative, the question</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 90%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> as to w</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">hether the Defendants/Applicants will suffer any miscarriage of justice or be prejudiced if the Preliminary Objection is considered with the final judgment of this Court. Counsel submitted that t</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language: HE">he primary objective in any judicial process is to avoid taking any step that may lead to the miscarriage of justice, or will even prejudice any of the parties. Thus, the Court </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">will avoid any practice or procedure that will lead to that. In the instant case, and as stated earlier, the Defendants/Applicants have absolutely nothing to lose at whatsoever stage the Preliminary Objection is considered. The important thing is that it must be considered after all and given its full amplitude. For the Claimant/Respondent on the other hand, there will be such miscarriage of justice and prejudice if a defence that is available to him is shut out because of the procedure adopted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In conclusion of his address, Counsel enjoined the Court to dispense justice and equity and to ensure that the interest of justice is at all times upheld in any judicial process. This means that substantial justice must be pursued at all times. To peremptorily shut out the Claimant/Respondent from a defence that otherwise will be available to him will be a negation of the above stated justice re-statements. Counsel urged court to exercise its discretion along the line of substantial justice by giving the Claimant/Respondent the opportunity of hearing all the defences available to him by considering the Preliminary Objection after taking evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On the part of the Defendants, counsel objected and submitted that the court should not and in fact cannot abandon a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction raised in limine and go into the substantive suit. That the court must determine first if it has jurisdiction before assuming the jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel raised a sole issue for determination, being:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 89%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether in the circumstance, this court can proceed to hear the substantive suit without first hearing and determining the Preliminary Objection of the Defendants in this suit to the jurisdiction of this court. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing the sole issue, Counsel for the Defendants cited the case of <b>FAJIMOLU vs. UNILORIN (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1017) 74 @ 86 PARAS</b>. <b>E-G</b> (which counsel says is on all fours with the instant case), where the Court of Appeal has held thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:89%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> “</span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">It cannot be premature to seek to dispose of a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court at the first opportunity especially where it would dispose of the case without the need to call evidence. Hence, failure to determine a preliminary objection based on the issue of limitation which may affect the jurisdiction of the court is a grievous error. <u>In the instant case, the </u> <u>trial court was right to have taken the issue of objection to its jurisdiction </u> <u>based on law of limitation first.<o:p></o:p></u></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">See </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">ADIGUN vs. AYINDE (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516; ACB vs. OBMIAMI BRICK & STONE (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 294) 399; YUSUF vs. CO-OPERATIVE BANK (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) 676.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Even where the action of the Defendants is tainted with malice, bad faith or <br> deliberate exercise of power without lawful authority, the Supreme Court has held in <b>Egbe vs. Alhaji </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">(1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) pg. 572</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> per Uwais, JSC, interalia: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“In a civil action, where the defendant invokes in limine, the procedure under .. it is .. not proper for the trial court to infer or conclude from the pleadings that the protection afforded the defendant by the law, has been vitiated by malice, or bad faith. For <u>what the trial court is obliged to decide at that stage is whether the action is maintainable and not whether the defendant is liable</u>" </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It further held in the same case of <b>Egbe vs. Alhaji (Supra) </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">@ <i>596-597J </i>paras. H-A</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> per Karibi-Whyte JSC that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“<i>Where the action was instituted within the period of three months prescribed, there is a cause of action, and the legality </i></span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">vel non </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of the action complained of can be in issue. II is in such a situation that at the trial evidence can be led to determine whether the protection under the Public Officers Protection Act has been vitiated by malice, improper motive, bad faith or deliberate exercise of power without lawful authority.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In <b>Fajimolu vs. Unilorin (Supra)</b>, the Court of Appeal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">@ pages 88 B-D and 90 A-B concurred by repeating the Supreme Court decision in <b>Egbe vs. Alhaji</b> when illegality and malice are imported that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“The words used in S. 2( a) of the Public Officers (Protection) Act are plain and ought to be given their ordinary meaning. The beneficial statutes which are construed to protect certain members of the public ought to be construed in such a way as to meet that objective. It is not right to read into an enactment an exception which it has not expressed and which will have the effect of depriving the person intended to be protected of that protection. The words "bias" and "malice" are not part of the provisions of the statute and should not be read into it. In the instant case, <u>whether the issue of malice, bias, etc was pleaded or not by the appellant is irrelevant since at the time he filed the action, he no longer had a cause of action. If he had filed the action within time, then issues may be joined and evidence led to show that indeed the respondent acted ultra vires the office while motivated by bad faith, malice etc”.</u> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language: HE">According to counsel, it is unfortunate that despite the avalanche of judicial authorities, the Claimant has ignored or better still chosen to ignore the hard truth that there is a clear distinction between the lack of jurisdiction of a court and when the jurisdiction of a court is impaired. </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 113%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In the case of <b>NNONYE vs. ANYCHE (2005) 21 NSCQR 358 </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">@ </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">384 D-F per Oguntade JSC</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">, an objection was raised challenging the jurisdiction of the court for non-service of pre-action notice. The court stated that when the jurisdiction of a court is impaired for non-compliance with a condition precedent, the action becomes non-justiciable which could be repaired by substantial compliance. That when the case is impairment of jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction can be taken during trial and same raised even in the statement of defence. But not when the court has no jurisdiction at all as in the instant case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The apex court further states Per Oguntade, JSC in the same <b>NNONYE vs. <br> ANYCHE (SUPRA) </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">@ 385 E-F </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">It seems to me therefore that cases to the effect that jurisdiction can be raised before service of statement of defence are those in which it is ex facie apparent from the writ of summons and statement of claim that there is no jurisdiction in the court. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">According to counsel, it is<i> </i>clear from the above decision of the apex court that objections to jurisdictions are raised in limine (before service of the statement of defence) when it is ex facie apparent from the writ of summons and statement of claim that there is no jurisdiction just like in the instant case where the claimant commenced his actions against public officers when the statutory period for commencement of such has expired. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel went on that the Supreme Court went further in <b>NNONYE vs. ANYCHE (SUPRA) </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">@ 381-382 G- A</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> to state inter alia: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">This further explains why it is important for a party who perceived that a court has no jurisdiction to hear a cause or matter must raise the issue at the earliest opportunity, and correspondingly, a court is expected to decide the issue of its jurisdiction to hear a case, when a challenge is raised at the earliest opportunity. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> See also TUKUR vs. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:88%;mso-bidi-language:HE">4 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; SAUDE vs. ABDULLAHI (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 116) 387 </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">SC.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">According to counsel, the issue of jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold issue that goes to the root of the matter. It is a lifeline for continuing any proceedings. In <b>NDIC vs. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">@ 296 B-E</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> the Supreme Court held that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Objection to jurisdiction ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity if there are sufficient materials before the court to consider it and a decision reached on it before ANY OTHER STEP in the proceedings is taken because if there is no jurisdiction, the entire proceedings ore a nullity no matter how well conducted.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel for the Defendant pointed out that the claimant had stated that no law expressly provided for determination of objections to jurisdiction before the substantive suit, and that these are merely rules of practice to the effect that the time of the court will not be wasted. According to Counsel for the Defendants, Counsel for the Claimant forgot so easily that case-laws are part of our laws, and they constitute precedents which the courts are bound to follow and apply. This, according to Counsel, does not refer to the justiciability of the Claimant's action or what he will plead or has pleaded to prove the reliefs he seeks, but jurisdiction involves what will enable the plaintiff to seek hearing in court over his grievance and get it resolved because he has to be able to show that the court is empowered to entertain the subject matter <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is Counsel’s submission that jurisdiction is the nerve centre of adjudication; it is the blood that <br> gives life to the survival of an action in a</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:82%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">court of law in the same way blood <br> gives life to the human being and animal race. See <b>ONYENUCHEYA vs. MILAD, IMO STATE (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 429; INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 588 PARA E-H.</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Assuming without conceding that this honourable court has discretion whether to hear or not to hear the objection together with the substantive suit; such discretion cannot be exercised in vacuum but in connection to the facts of this particular case before it. See <b>SHINING STAR NIG. LTD vs. A.K.S. STEEL NIG LTD </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">3 ORS. (UNREPORTED: CA/L/558M/2009)</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> delivered in March 15, 2010. In the above case, the Court of Appeal stated inter alia that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“The very essence of the proper exercise of judicial discretion is deeply rooted in the belief that it be exercised in accordance with well laid down rules of law, practice, reason, fairness and justice, and not in accordance with whimsical opinion, humour and sentimental disposition" per Ibrahim Salauwa JCA <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Our Supreme Court went ahead to define Judicial discretion in the case of <br> AKINYEMI vs. ODUA INVESTMENT CO. LTD (2012) 49 NSCQR 405 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">@ </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">440 paras F-H. thus: <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">A judicial discretion however is the exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law. In other words, it is a court's power to act or not act when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a mailer of right. To make such a discretion look judicial and judicious, it has to be based on prudence, rationality, sagacity, astuteness, considerateness and reasonableness. Per 1.1. Mohammad JSC <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> <i>See also UNILAG vs. AIGORO (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 143 <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">And the Black's Law Dictionary, 5<sup>th</sup> edition, p. 419 captures more beautifully <br> the meaning and very essence of judicial discretion when it states: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Judicial and legal discretion</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">: These terms are applied to the discretionary <br> action of a judge or court and mean discretion bounded by the rules and principles of law and not arbitrary, capricious or unrestrained. It is not the indulgence of a judicial whim, but the exercise of judicial judgment based on facts and guided by law, or the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances. It is a legal discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law and is not to give effect to the will of the judge but to that of the law. The exercise of discretion where there are two alternative provisions of law applicable, under either of which court should proceed. A liberty or privilege to decide and ad in accordance with what is fair and equitable under the spirit and principles of the law. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">From all the definitions and pronouncements made above, it is evident according to counsel, that judicial discretion must be exercised in accordance with laid down rules of law, practice, fairness, justice, prudence, rationality, sagacity, astuteness, considerateness, reasonableness and not according to whimsical opinion, humour, sentimental disposition of any or both litigants or judge. It should not be arbitrary, capricious and unrestrained. It must be just and fair according to the law. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">According to Counsel, the law in the instant case; that is the Public Officer's Act/Law which is the gravamen of this suit provides that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Where any action, prosecution or proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any such law, negiect or default in the execution of any such law, duty. .or authority, the following provisions shall have effect: <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> The action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury within three months next after the ceasing thereof. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Now the principle and spirit of the above cited law says that once anybody feels aggrieved or suffers any injury arising from the act of a public officer, such a person should promptly seek redress in a court of law within three months next after the act that occasioned the injury or grievance. It is the claimants claim that his appointment with the defendants was prematurely and wrongfully terminated on the1st of April, 2012. Instead of seeking a redress, the claimant waited until the three statutorily provided months expired. To further prove that there was actually no injury, he even waited till the 13<sup>th</sup> day of July 2015, a period of over three </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">(3) </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">years before he suddenly realized that he suffered some injury. This laches is a clear indication that there was no grievance and that was why he conceded and acquiesced his rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:71%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The Supreme Court, per I. I. Mohammad JSC had said in the above case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language:HE">AKINYEMI vs. ODUA INVESTMENT </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">CO. </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 91%;mso-bidi-language:HE">LTD (SUPRA)</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:112%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> Where the law has conferred a right on a person and the person, for some reason, decides to abdicate or abandon or relinquish that right, it is not the duty of the court and of course the court has no power to restore that right on such a person as cannot (sic) force an unwilling horse to drink water. </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">@ </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 112%;mso-bidi-language:HE">438 C-F <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">And in </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language:HE">EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">(1989) 1 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">NWLR (Pt. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">47) 1 @ 20-21, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 91%;mso-bidi-language:HE">PARAS H-A, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">the fate of the instant suit was finally signed, sealed and delivered when the Supreme Court held that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">If an action was statute-barred by statute, no amount of resort to merit of Appellant's contention will serve to keep the action in being. <b>Per Aniagolu</b> JSC. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">To counsel, this is the spirit and principles of law, this is the reasonableness, fairness, justice, prudence, rationality, considerateness and astuteness upon which judicial discretion should be exercised under the circumstance of this case. Doing otherwise will amount to indulgence to judicial whim. It will tantamount to adherence to whimsical opinions, humour and sentimental disposition of the Claimants which absolutely is against the spirit and principles of the law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:91%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In concluding his submissions, Counsel stated that j</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">ustice means giving to each his due. This means that for justice to be worth its while, everybody must get what is due to him - the Claimant, the Defendants, the State and the Law. It is not justice when it is only for the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the whimsical and sentimental disposition of the Claimant, dismiss this application, and proceed to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">On points of Law, Counsel submitted that the case of <b>EGBE vs. ALHAJI (SUPRA)</b> is no longer the authority and indeed the <i>locus classical </i>on the issue of jurisdiction when raised <i>in limine </i>in relation to a public officer who abused his office and acted outside the colour of same. According to Counsel, the authority and indeed the <i>locus classicus </i>now is that of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE {2012} LPELR-9336 SC. A <br> succinct statement of the facts is as follows: The National Boundary Commission in their 11<sup>th</sup> Administrative Boundary ceded to Bayelsa State, Soku Oil fields that should rightly belong to Rivers State. The failure of the National Boundary Commission to correct this error compelled Rivers State to commence a suit at the Supreme Court three years later. The Respondent (Bayelsa State) raised an objection <i>in limine </i>pursuant to the Public Officers Protection Act. In its Ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the objection and proceeded to hear the suit on its merit. In its Ruling on the issue of the Defendants stepping outside the colour of their office, the Supreme Court had this to say: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">"The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant cannot avail itself of the defence under the Act if it has stepped outside the colour of its office, or its statutory or constitutional duties, if any. This Court <u>must look into this issue and would not with a wave of hand deprive the Plaintiff its legal capacity to ventilate its grievance".</u> </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Per Galadima JSC (delivering the lead Judgment). <i><u><o:p></o:p></u></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The following cases were cited for the consideration of the Supreme Court in that Ruling: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">EGBE vs. ALHAJI (1990) I NWLR (Pt. 128) 346; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">OLATUNJI vs. I.G.P 21 NLR 52; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">MICHAEL OBIEFUNA vs. ALEXANDER OKOYE (1961) 1 All NLR 357; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">FADARE vs. A.G OYO STATE (1982) NSCLR 643; and <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">NTUKS vs. N.P.A (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392 @ 428. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">According to Counsel, in the said Ruling of the Supreme Court, it did not make any reference to the case of <b>EGBE vs. ALHAJI (SUPRA). </b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Also, according to the Claimant’s counsel, all the Supreme Court cases cited by the Defendants/Applicants are earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue, and in particular <b>EGBE vs. ALHAJI {SUPRA}</b>. By implication and pursuant to the principle of <i>stare decisis, </i>the case of <b>EGBE vs. ALHAJI (SUPRA)</b> is no longer the binding authority on the issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s further submission that in <b>OSAKWE vs. F.C.E ASABA (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 1</b>, it was held that:</span> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">"Where there are two irreconciliable decisions of the Supreme Court, the subordinate courts are enjoined to abide by the latter decision. It has been variously expressed that the Court of Appeal must accept and apply loyally, the decisions of the Supreme Court and where the decisions are manifestly in conflict, the latter decision is binding on the Court of Appeal</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">" <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> per Orji-Abadua, JCA. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that this principle applies to this Court <i>mutatis mutandis. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the same view, it was held in <b>GLAXO SMITHKLlNE PLC vs. JIYA (2014) LPELR- 22902 (CA)</b> as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">" ... it is an established principle of law that when this Court is faced with two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on an issue, the court is bound to follow the latest. This is because the Supreme Court has an inherent power to overrule itself. If the latest decision is in conflict with the earlier one, it follows that the latest decision has overruled the earlier one". <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">See also:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">DAHIRU vs. KAMALE (2005) NWLR (Pt. 927) 8; <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">SALTGITTER STAHI GMBE vs. TUNJI DOSUNMU INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR-2999 (SC),<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">CHIEF OKPOZO vs. BENDEL NEWSPAPER CORPORATION & ANOR (1990) 5 NWLR (PT.153) 652 @663 and <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;mso-bidi-language:HE">·<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">ADEWALE vs. ADEOLA (2015) LPELR-25972 (CA).</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that the Defendants/Applicants have by implication conceded to the binding authority of <b>ATTORNEY-GENERAL RIVERS STATE vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BAYELSA STATE (SUPRA)</b> on this issue having not distinguished it from that of <b>EGBE vs. ALHAJI (SUPRA).</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel made further submissions which were repetitions of their initial address. They need not be repeated here. He urged that the Claimant’s application be granted. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Court’s Decision<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">I have considered the arguments of counsels to the parties on the application made by the claimant’s counsel; and to me, I think the issue is quite a simple one. I will also keep my view on the issue simple. The issue under contention, whether objection to the jurisdiction of court can be left unheard until after conclusion of evidence in the matter, has been settled in plethora of judicial decisions. Few of them will suffice here.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The Supreme Court, in <b>ISAAC OBIUWEUBI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR (PT.1247) 465 AT 494</b>, per Rhodes-Vivour JSC, held:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“It is thus mandatory that courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to consider any other matter. Usually, where a court’s jurisdiction is challenged by the defence, it is better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hear a case on the merits. Any failure by the court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which renders further step taken in the proceedings a nullity.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The same principle was expressed in <b>PETROJESSICA ENTERPRISES LTD vs. LEVENTIS TECHNICAL CO. LTD (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675,</b> per Belgore JSC (as he then was), thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“The importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a case. Be it at the trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, or to this court, a fortiori, the court can suo motu raise it. It is desirable that preliminary objection be raised early on issue of jurisdiction, but once it is apparent to any party that the court may not have jurisdiction, it can be raised viva voce as in this case. It is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and cost and to avoid a trial in nullity”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Again, the Supreme Court held in <b>N.D.I.C vs. C.B.N (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766)</b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> 296 </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“Objection to jurisdiction ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity if there are sufficient materials before the court to consider it and a decision reached on it before any other step in the proceedings is taken because if there is no jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are a nullity no matter how well conducted”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The Supreme Court similarly held in <b>A.P.G.A. vs. ANYANWU (2014) All FWLR (PT.735) 243 at 256-257</b>, per Kekere-Ekun JSC, as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“The law by now well settled that jurisdiction is the life blood of any adjudication and where it is lacking, it will render any proceedings, no matter how well conducted, liable to be set aside for being a nullity. Jurisdiction is so fundamental that once the court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter is challenged, it must be dealt with and resolved first before taking another step in the proceedings. It is because it is so fundamental that it can be raised at any time, in any manner and at any stage of the proceedings. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Also, in <b>SOLOMON vs. F.R.N. (2014) All FWLR (Pt.751) 1503 at 1521</b>, the Court of Appeal expressed its own view thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“Indeed it is a well founded doctrine that where an action is not competent or properly instituted, the court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain and determine same. Thus, it is most imperative that the issue of jurisdiction be dealt with first and foremost before determining the action on the merits.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The import of these statements by the higher courts is that the question as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a matter and the competence of a suit before any court are very fundamental and are threshold issues. Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised, it has to be determined before the court can proceed any further in the case. Therefore, it is the principle of law and the practice of the courts to determine any Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court before any other matter can be given consideration. The approach which the claimant’s counsel wants me to adopt in this case does not appear to me to have support in law. In fact, His Lordship, Rhodes-Vivour JSC in <b>ISAAC OBIUWEUBI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (supra) </b>has described the<b><i> </i></b>failure to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to jurisdiction of court early enough <b>when raised</b> as a fundamental breach which renders any further step taken in the proceedings a nullity. Perhaps if it was never raised, a different scenario may have played out. In view of the position of the courts as laid down in the above authorities, the application of the claimant’s counsel ought to be refused and it is accordingly refused. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>