Importance Of Territorial Jurisdiction of Trial Court (III)

The question of jurisdiction is very fundamental that, it should be dealt with first before continuing with all proceedings. If  a court proceeds without jurisdiction it would amount to a nullity. It is also trite that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at anytime  even for the first time on appeal. Ukwu v. Bunge (1997) 8 NWLI  (Pt. 518) pg. 527; leric Nig. Ltd. v. U.B.N. Plc. (2000) 12 SC (P1  11), pg. 133 (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 447; A.-G. Lagos State 1  Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.1111 pg. 552; Nnonye v. Anyichi  (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) pg. 623.

Territorial jurisdiction of a trial court is relevant for the  validity of any proceedings before a court. Wuyep v. Wuyep (1997  10 NWLR (Pt.523) pg.l54.

In considering whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain  a matter, the court is guided by the claim before it, by critical looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim. Gafar  Govt. of Kwara State (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1024) pg. 375; Onuora  v. KR.P.C. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) pg. 393; Tukur v. Govt. ( Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.l17) pg. 517.

In the instant appeal, the writ in the trial court was brought  under the undefended list procedure, therefore the court has to  critically look at the writ and the affidavit of the plaintiff. The  plaintiff respondent in his affidavit deposed as follows:

That the plaintiff is a private limited liability company  established under the Laws of the Federal Republic of  Nigeria with its business headquarters at No. 203 Ikot  Ekpene Road, Uyo,Akwa Ibom State.

That the plaintiff/applicant deals on automobile  products such as trucks and cars including the sales  and supply of motor spare parts.

That the defendant/respondent is a private limited  liability company established under the Laws of the  Federal Republic of Nigeria with administrative head  office at No.77 Azikwe Road, Aba, Abia State and  branch office at Plot 499, Port Harcourt Road, Aba  in Abia State of Nigeria. She carries out the business  of supply of motor vehicle spare parts and general  contract, among others.

That sometime in September, 2006 the defendant  through her Chairman/Managing Director, one Mr. T.  C. Umemadumelu, approached the plaintiff’s Chief  Executive, Mr. Michael Effiong at the plaintiff’s  Head Office at No. 203 Ikot Ekpene Road, Uyo and  requested the plaintiff to supply to the defendant Mack  Truck Clutch Assembly (motor parts). Exhibit “A”  hereto is the complimentary card given by the  defendant’s Chairman to the plaintiff.

That the defendant inspected the said motor part and  having been satisfied with its quality and condition  agreed to purchase same at a total cost of N 1,200,000.00  (One million, two hundred thousand naira).

The plaintiff supplied the said motor part to the  defendant who took delivery in good condition and  transported same to her office at Aba.  That upon taking delivery of the said motor part the  said chairman of the defendant told the said plaintiff’s  Chief Executive to send somebody to follow him to  Aba to collect the said sum of N 1.2 million which was the agreed cost of the part.

That following paragraph 9 above, the said Chief  Executive of the plaintiff mandated me to follow the  defendant’s Chairman to Aba to collect the said sum of  N 1.2 million and I did.”

The above paragraphs described the plaintiff/respondent and his

address, the defendant/appellant and address and then the value of  the contract. Order 10 rule 3 Akwa Ibom State High Court (Civil  Procedure) Rules, 1989 provides that suits arising from breach  of contract shall be commenced and determined in the judicial  division in which the contract was entered into or ought to have  been performed or in which the defendant resides or carries on  business.

In the instant case, the respondent stated that the contract of  sale of the Mack Clutch was entered into in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.  The plaintiff took delivery of the spare parts and took it to Aba.

The appellant asked that the respondent should send one of his  employees with him to Aba to collect the money.

With the foregoing, no one is in doubt where the transaction  took place. If  the contract was entered into in Uyo by the appellant  and respondent, it therefore means that Akwa Ibom State High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine this liquidated  money demand. Issue 1 is therefore resolved against the appellant.

ISSUE2:

The appellant submitted that the trial Judge was wrong to  have placed this suit under the undefended list procedure. Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that there was conflict in the affidavits of both parties, and only oral evidence can resolve it and  therefore the suit should be transferred to the general cause list.  Where a defendant has shown in his affidavit that he has a defence  on the merit, he will be granted leave to defend the suit. Counsel,  therefore urges the court to hold that this suit ought to have been  transferred to the general cause list.  In reply, the learned counsel to the respondent submitted that  the allegation of fraud made against the respondent cannot stand.  This is so because the fraud must be on matters relevant to the case  set up by the plaintiff. See the cases of Okoli v. Morecab Finance  (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 30 NSCQR (Pt.l) page 453 (2007) 14 NWLR  (Pt. 1053) 37; John Holt & Co. (Liverpool) Ltd v. Fajemirokun  (1961) 1 ANLR (Reprint) page 513. Counsel argued that exhibit D, the sales invoice allegedly forged is of no moment.

The appellant  has not denied his indebtedness but alleged that exhibit 0 the sales  invoice was forged. Having admitted his indebtedness there was  nothing left to contest.  Counsel urged the court to hold that the trial court was right to hear and determine this suit under the undefended list procedure.  The undefended list procedure is adopted when it is perceived  that the defendant could not possibly have any defence to the  claim. A suit is maintainable under the undefended list procedure  if it relates to a claim for a debt or liquidated money demand.