CaseLaw
Socio-Political Research Development V. Min. of Federal Capital Territory (2018) CLR 9(b)(SC)
Judgement delivered on September 28th 2018
Brief
Facts
The appellant, herein, was the respondent/plaintiff at the Court of Appeal, Abuja (Court below) and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the trial Court), respectively. The respondents herein were the appellants at the Court below and defendants at the trial Court. The plaintiff took out a writ of summons dated 3rd August 1999 and filed along with it a statement of claim.
The matter was before Kolajo, J. and several applications filed by the respondents/defendants in the matter were heard and refused. Kolajo, J. retired before the matter was finally determined and it was consequently re-assigned to I. U. Bello, J. (as he then was). On the 30th of September, 2001, Bello, J. took a motion for stay of proceedings which he granted pending appeal.
The respondents alleged that the appellant, without any notice to them, moved the trial Court to discharge the order of stay of proceedings earlier granted by the same Court when they were served with notice of motion for judgment filed by the appellant. The respondents filed a motion for the stay of proceedings and a motion for preliminary objection to the appellant's motion for judgment. The trial Court refused both applications which were struck out. What was then left before the trial Court was the appellant's motion for judgment and counter affidavit of the respondents. The respondents meanwhile, had filed an interlocutory appeal entered by the Court below as No.CA/A/32/2002. The trial Court overruled the objection of the respondents and entered judgment for the appellant based on the motion for judgment. The respondents were dissatisfied and filed their appeal to the Court below praying that Court to strike out the interlocutory appeal No.CA/A/32/2003 on the ground that it was similar to the substantive appeal filed.
From the records, both parties pursued to its logical conclusion, appeal No. CA/A/113/2004 where the Court below held that the respondents were agencies or agents of the Federal Government and as such the FCT High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's action despite the fact that its claim was based on a simple contract. That is the basis of the appellant's appeal to this Court.