Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Nnonye V. Anyichie (2005) CLR 1 (k) (SC)

Brief

  • Statutory provisions
  • Jurisdiction of court
  • Non service of pre trial notice
  • Ord 10 r1 & 2 Anambra State High Court Civil procedure rules
  • S.41(1) Sheriffs and civil process law

Facts

The Appellant, as Plaintiff, instituted this action at Awka High Court in Anambra State as Suit No. AA/157/88 against the Respondents as Defendant jointly and severally. His claim, as set out in paragraph 9 of his statement of claim, was for a total sum of N100,110 for damages for trespass, damages for defamation and return of money collected from him. The Plaintiff and 1st Defendant were businessmen while the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were Court bailiffs. The Appellant and the 1st Respondent had been involved in a High Court case for which costs were awarded by the Court against the 1st Respondent in favour of the Appellant. There was an outstanding sum of N50 (Fifty Naira) out of the costs awarded by the Court against the said 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent applied to the Court for a writ of fife for the recovery of the said N50 (Fifty Naira). The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were the Court bailiffs assigned to carry out the order. The Plaintiff's action arose from the act committed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants (now Respondents) in the course of their duties as Court bailiffs.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged - The Defendants thereafter filed a motion in which they prayed the trial Court for the following relief: -

"An order striking out this suit for not being properly before the honourable Court."

The motion was supported by a 9 paragraph affidavit and a further affidavit both deposed to by the 1st Defendant.

The motion was opposed by the Plaintiff and to that end, he filed a 7 paragraph counter affidavit and a further counter-affidavit, Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit read as follows:-

  • 4.
    That there was no valid subsisting order of costs in respect of which the 1st Defendant has any right of recovery.
  • 5.
    That both the trial Judge who signed the writ of fifa after the nullification of the proceedings and the orders for costs therein and the 1st Defendant's counsel in suits No. AA/LGE.8/88 were aware of the wrongfulness of levying execution on the invalid order, but nevertheless persisted in enforcing a claim that no longer existed.
  • 6.
    That the Plaintiff averred in paragraph 6 of his statement of claim that he demanded from the bailiffs authority for their action and they responded by showing him form 41 issued on 13th October, 1988."

The matter came for hearing before Uzodike, J. And after taking submissions from learned counsel for the parties, he delivered his reserved ruling on 13/7/95. The learned Judge in his said ruling upheld the objection to jurisdiction raised and struck out the Plaintiff's claim. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the ruling and he appealed to the Court of Appeal. He also lost in the Court of Appeal and the present appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case delivered in Suit No.CA/E/30/96 on 26/10/99.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the Hon. Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in...
    Read More