The Respondents, as Plaintiffs in the Federal High Court, Lagos on 26th July, 1995 filed a Writ of Summons together with a statement of claim, claiming against the Defendants/Appellants, a declaration and an order of perpetual injunction. The Appellants in reaction, challenged the competence of the said suit in limine - praying that the suit be struck out, or dismissed on the ground that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. After hearing arguments from both learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge - Odunowo, J. in a considered Ruling delivered on 12th June, 1996, dismissed the application.
I note that the Respondents filed a fresh statement of claim on 21st June, 1996, after pleadings had been ordered by the trial Court. The Appellants on 15th November, 1996 filed their Amended Statement of Defence. Notwithstanding the said Ruling of 12th June, 1996, the Appellants on 27th January, 1997, filed a fresh application seeking,
-
"An order dismissing or alternatively striking out the Plaintiffs Writ of Summons and statement of claim on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit".
-
The ground for the application is stated to be,
-
"........that the Plaintiff's (sic) Writ of Summons and statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action".
See page 38 of the Records. It could be seen at once, that this ground, is similar to the application that gave rise to the said Ruling of 12th June, 1996.
-
The Respondents, filed a Preliminary Objection and prayed that "......... the prayer being sought in the said motion dated 27th January, 1997, had been distinctly raised and determined by the Federal High Court in its Ruling delivered on the I2th June, 1996 and cannot be relitigated in this civil suit".
One of the arguments proffered by the Appellants at the hearing of the Objection, was/is that "the ruling of the 12th June, 1996 was delivered without jurisdiction ".
However, the learned trial Judge, after hearing arguments on both the application and the Preliminary Objection, on 8th October, 1998, in a considered Ruling, dismissed the Appellants' said application. He finally stated at page 14 of the Records, as follows:
-
"............after a sober reflection on the facts, arguments and circumstances of this application, I have no difficulty whatsoever in reaching the conclusion that the Defendants motion is lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed. It follows that the Plaintiffs' Preliminary objection succeeds and it is accordingly hereby upheld. The case shall proceed to trial as previously scheduled ...................."
That is to say that before the Appellants brought their said second application, the learned trial Judge, had fixed the case for hearing to 30th October, 1996, as the parties had filed and exchanged their pleadings. But the Appellants refused to abide by the said fixture. They filed an appeal to the Court below, not against the earlier Ruling of 12th June, 1996, but against the said later Ruling of 8th October, 1998.............."
Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error when it struck out Appellants' Issue...
Read More
