Receipt Of Land Purchase: Interest Conferred Therein (II)

On Relationship between limitation law and locus standi and materials court considers in determining issue of jurisdiction –

Limitation Law and locus standi are both threshold issues which can be raised any time or for the first time in the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court. It is not limited to being raised as a special defence and pleading them specifically as required by the Rules of Court under Order 22 rule 2 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules. It transcends any High Court rules. It can be raised by preliminary objection at any stage of the proceedings before any court by any of the parties or even suo motu by the court. It is therefore noteworthy that an application or preliminary objection seeking an order to strike out a suit for being incompetent on the ground of absence of jurisdiction is not a demurrer and therefore can be filed and taken even before the defendant files his statement of defence. The reason being that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. In addition, the relevant things to be considered by the court in determining the issue of jurisdiction is the facts as deposed to in affidavits, the writ of summons and the statement of claim where one had to be filed and served. The statement of defence is not one of the relevant materials for that purpose. (Pp. 179-180, paras. H-C)

On Importance of jurisdiction –

Jurisdiction is the very basis on which any tribunal tries a case. It is the lifetime of all trials. A trial without jurisdiction is a nullity. This importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a case be it at trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court. Afortiori  the court can suo motu raise it. It is desirable that preliminary objection be raised early on the issue of jurisdiction. But once it is apparent to any party that the court may not have jurisdiction, it can be raised even viva voce. It is always in the interest of justice’ to raise the issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity. [Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 30) 617; Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350 referred to.] (P. 181, paras. B-E)

On When issue of jurisdiction can be raised –

Issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and at any stage of the proceedings even at the Supreme Court. Once it is raised, everything else has to stop to give the prime position of hearing on the jurisdictional issue. It cannot be said to have been brought too late, however irritating the process may be. [Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84)  508; Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31 referred to.] (P.202,paras.E-F)

On Duty on court to resolve first issues of limitation of action or locus standi once raised –

Once issues of limitation of action, or a matter being statute-barred, or that plaintiff has no locus standi is raised, the court is obliged to give it the first shot since the issue has to do with whether or not the court has the authority or jurisdiction to enter into the matter. This is so that if the issue of jurisdiction succeeds that would terminate for all time the action of the plaintiff. [Egbe v. Adefarasin (No. 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 549; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 423; Adesokan v. Adegorolu (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 261; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 referred to.] (P.202, paras. C-D)

On Proper order to make where court lacks jurisdiction-

Absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law and the only procedural duty of a court is to strike out the case. Once the proceedings and judgment of a trial court is a nullity, the matter ends there. The rule in U A.C. v. Macfoy (1961) 3 WLR 1405 becomes operative as you cannot put something on nothing.  In the instant case, the defect in the competence of the trial court to entertain the suit was fatal. The entire proceedings before the court was a nullity no matter how well conducted or decided or the level of industry put into the trial and judgment by the learned counsel for the respondent and the trial court. (P. 182, paras. E-G)

On Duty on court where its jurisdiction is challenged –

Where there is a challenge to the jurisdiction of a court, the court must first assume jurisdiction to consider whether it has or lacks jurisdiction. (P.182, paras. D-E)

On When objection to jurisdiction can be taken –

Objection to jurisdiction can be taken at any time  depending on what materials are available. It would be taken in the following situations:

(a) on the basis of the statement of claim; or

(b)  on the basis of the evidence received; or

(c)  by a motion supported by affidavit giving full facts upon which reliance is placed; or

(d) on the face of the writ of summons, where appropriate, as to the capacity in which an action is brought or against whom action is brought.

In the instant case, the objection of the appellant dated 2nd August 1996 as to limitation law in respect of the acquisition of the disputed land by the Lagos State government and the issue of the locus standi of the plaintiff/respondent ought to have been entertained by the trial court. [A.-G., Kwara State v. Olawale (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 645; Irenkwe v. Nnadozie (1953) 14WACA 361; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31; Kasikwu Farms Ltd. v. A.-G., Bendel State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 695; Barclays Bank of Nig. Ltd. v. CBN (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 409; National Bank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Shoyeye (1977) 5 SC 181 referred to.] (Pp.181-182,paras.E-A)

On Duty on court not to give order against defendant once issue of jurisdiction is raised –

Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised in any suit, the court must not give an order in the suit affecting the defendant until the issue of jurisdiction is settled.In the instant case, the trial court obviously made a wrong order in dismissing the application of the appellant based on issues of jurisdiction – locus standi of the plaintiff/respondent and limitation law. (Pp. 180-181, paras. H-A)

On Distinction between demurrer and objection to jurisdiction –

There is distinction between objection to jurisdiction and demurrer. It is misleading to equate demurrer

with objection to jurisdiction. It is a standing principle that in demurrer, the plaintiff must plead, and it is upon that pleading that the defendant will contend that accepting all the facts pleaded to be true, the plaintiff has no cause of action or where appropriate no locus standi. The issue of jurisdiction is not a matter for demurrer proceedings. It is much more fundamental than that and does not entirely depend as such on what a plaintiff may plead as facts to prove the relief he seeks. What it involves is what will enable the plaintiff to seek a hearing in court over his grievance and get it resolved, because

he is able to show that the court is empowered to entertain the subject matter. It does not always follow that he must plead first in order to raise the issue of jurisdiction. [NDIC v. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272 referred to.] (P.180,paras. C-G)

On Need for court to resolve issue of preliminary objection to competence of suit first –

Where a defendant conceives that he has a good legal or equitable defence to an action, he is entitled,

as a matter of preliminary objection to the action, to raise such a defence. Where a preliminary objection is that an action does not lie, it postulates that the action is incompetent and the court therefore lacks the requisite jurisdiction. Where an action can be decided on a preliminary objection, it is manifestly absurd to suggest that the court should take evidence. In the instant case, the whole basis of the appellant’s preliminary point of law was to show the trial court that the action, going by the writ and statement of claim, was statute-barred and that the respondent had no locus standi to institute the action. The trial court therefore misconceived the principle of law in issue when it dismissed the appellant’s preliminary objection and ordered him to put up his defence. [Adigun v. Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 313) 516 referred to.] (P. 173, paras. E-H)

On Relationship between locus standi and jurisdiction and when issue of locus standi can be raised –

Locus standi and jurisdiction are interwoven in the sense that locus standi goes to affect the jurisdiction

of the court before which an action is brought. Thus, where there is no locus standi to file an action, the court cannot properly assume jurisdiction to entertain the action. Locus standi being an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage or level of the proceedings in a suit even on appeal at the Court of Appeal by any of the parties without leave of court or by the court itself suo motu. The issue can be raised after the plaintiff has duly filed his pleadings, by a motion and or in a statement of defence. Locus standi to institute proceedings in a court is not dependent on the success or merits of a case; it is a condition precedent to the determination of a case on the merits. In the instant case, the trial

court and the Court of Appeal fell into grave error in dismissing the summons filed by the appellant to raise the legal points of statute of limitation and locus standi, by holding that the legal points be raised at the conclusion of evidence on the legal reliefs sought by the respondent. [Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of C.C.c. (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 675) 315; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Klifco v. Phillipp Holzmann A.G. (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 436) 276 referred to.] (l76,paras. C-G)