Trial Courts And Territorial Jurisdiction (IV)

The question of jurisdiction is very fundamental that, it should be dealt with first before continuing with any 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 NWLR (Pt. 518) pg. 527; leric Nig. Ltd. v. UB.N. Pic. (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 11), pg. 133 (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 447; A.-G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.l11) pg. 552; Nnonye v. Anyichie  (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.154.

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

3. 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.

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

5.         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 Azikiwe 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.

6.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.

7.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).

8.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 NI.2 million which was the agreed cost of the part.

10.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 N1.2 million and I did.”

The above paragraphs described the plaintiffl/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 resol ved against the appellant.

Issue 2:

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 D 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 debtor liquidated money demand. This procedure when adopted shortens the hearing of the suit S.B.N. Plc. v. Kyentu (1998) 2   NWLR (Pt. 536) page 41, Garba v. Sheba int. (Nig) Ltd. (2002) 1NWLR (Pt. 748) page 372. Haido v. Usman (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) page 65.