CaseLaw
Urhobo V. Oteri (1999) CLR 2(b) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellants (as plaintiffs) by a writ of summons filed suit No.W/399/96 against the respondents as the defendants at the court below and claimed, mainly declaratory reliefs and injunction. The writ of summons accompanied by a motion ex-parte and a motion on notice for interim and interlocutory injunction were filed on 23-12-1996 at the trial court. The ex-parte motion for interim injunction pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction was granted by Dorubo Narobor J. of the Warri High Court on the same 23-12-1996 while the motion on notice was adjourned for hearing on 6-1-1997 but remained unheard up to today for reasons which are not apparent from the record of this appeal.
Meanwhile, pleading were duly filed and exchanged between the parties.
The respondents as defendants in their statement of defence paragraphs (3) raised points of law alleging that the appellants as plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the action which according to the respondents disclosed no cause of action. While the appellants' motion on notice for interlocutory injunction and the suit itself were awaiting a date for hearing, the respondents filed a motion on notice on 5-2-1997 asking that the points of law raised in their statement of defence be set down for hearing. Before a date could be fixed for /the hearing of this motion, the appellants filed another motion on notice on 1-2-1997 asking the lower court to restrain the respondents' counsel from appearing for them, set aside all the processes filed by him and stay further proceedings in the matter. This motion was heard and dismissed by the lower court on 25-2-1997. The appellants were granted leave to appeal against this ruling but their application for stay of further proceeding pending appeal was heard and dismissed by the lower court on 29-5-1997. While the substantive suit, the appellants' motion for interlocutory injunction and the respondents' motion to set down the points of law raised on the application of the appellants on 26-6-1997, the entire suit was transferred from Narobor J. to Awala J. for hearing and determination.
However, by a motion on notice dated 17-11-1997, the appellants again applied for the joinder of the Attorney-General of Delta State and the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Justice, Delta State as co-plaintiffs and also asked for stay of further proceeding in the suit pending the determination of the motion on notice. When this motion came up for hearing before Awala J. on 2-12-1997, the appellants' motion for interlocutory injunction filed since 23-12-1996 and the respondents' motion to set down the points of law raised in their statement of defence for hearing filed on 5-2-1997, were also on the list for hearing.
Learned counsel on both sides then addressed the lower court on the issue of which of the motions should be heard first. While the learned counsel to the respondents contended that the respondents' motion to set down the points of law raised in the respondents statement of defence should be taken first and in the alternative, the interim order of injunction granted to the appellants since 23-12-1996 should be discharged, the learned counsel to the appellants insisted that the appellants' motion for joinder dated 17-11-97 should be taken first. In a short ruling, the learned trial Judge decided that the respondents' motion for the dismissal of the appellants' suit should be taken first.
The appellants were dissatisfied and appealed.