"1.
The sum of N88,359,880.00 (Eighty-eight million, three hundred and fifty nine thousand, eight hundred and eighty naira) being the rents due for their leasehold Estate situate and lying known at (sic) Calabar Port commencing from 1969 till November 2001 at various amounts as revised from year unto year which is being owed and outstandingly ignored, rejected and or neglected to pay in their obligation to the plaintiff despite several demands made personally and collectively by the plaintiffs besides doing so through their agents, friends, and associates of the defendants without any reason cause or rhyme whereby the rents continuously are accumulated fallen due and payable on the 30th November of every year that the defendant is in occupation of their Estates with such increases as attendant to the same property as placed on keen in the property marked till the institution of this action and thereafter.
2.
21% interest rate chargeable on such rents as accrued to the plaintiffs as contained in (1) above year after year as indebtedness become concurrent up to the determination of this action and 10% interest on the judgment sum till finally liquidated en-bloc.
3.
The sum of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) being the cost demanding for the payment of the plaintiffs' legitimate rents to no avail till the institution of this action including legal fees till final prosecuted (sic)."
On 11/10/2002, the respondents filed a motion ex-parte praying the court to institute the action in a representative capacity, to place the suit under the Undefended List and for leave to serve the defendant (now appellant) with the writ of summons outside jurisdiction and in Lagos State. See page 1 of the record. That application was heard and granted on 6/11/2002. See page 42 of the record. Thereafter the respondents served the appellant with the writ through speed post.
Immediately the appellant was served with the originating process, without filing any notice of intention to defend and without entering appearance, it filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the suit. The grounds of the preliminary objection are as follows:filing any notice of intention to defend and without entering appearance, it filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the suit. The grounds of the preliminary objection are as follows:
-
a.
The appellant's status as an agency of the Federal Government and that the nature of the subject matter (Port) in respect of which rent was claimed by the respondents takes the case outside the jurisdiction of a State High Court.
-
b.
The prior leave of the court was not obtained before the suit was filed in a representative capacity.
-
c.
Prior leave of the court was neither sought nor obtained before the writ of summons was issued.
-
d.
The writ does not contain the mandatory endorsement(s) stipulated by the Sheriff and Civil Process Act." See pages 45 - 47 of the record.
On the 29/1 /2003, the preliminary objection was argued before the lower court, see pages 56 - 58 of the record. On 27/3/2003 the lower court in its ruling at pages 60 - 65 of the record dismissed the preliminary objection and in the same ruling entered judgment for the respondents pursuant to Order 23 Rule 4 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of Cross River State in the following terms:-
