Apostle O.N.godwin & Ors. V. Elder F.u. Okwey & Ors (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC

By an Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 22nd day of July, 1994 at the High Court of Abia State, Holden at Aba, in suit No. A/404/92, the plaintiffs therein, now respondents in this Court, claimed the following reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that the purported dissolution of the District Youths Fellowship and the National Youths Fellowship by the 3rd defendant’s letter dated 22nd of April, 1992 without giving the members of the two bodies an opportunity of defending the “package of questions” put to Rev. J.O. Nwoye and without complying with the provisions of the Constitution of Christ Ascension Church of Nigeria, is null and void and of no effect.

(b) A declaration that the so-called National Planning Committee under whose cover the 1st defendant has been running the affairs of the church as a private business to the exclusion of the General Council, a body vested with power by the Constitution to run the affairs of the Church is a body unknown to the Constitution, and consequently, its actions and decisions are null and void and of no effect.

(c) A declaration that the appointment of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant as the Treasurer-General of the Christ Ascension Church of Nigeria contrary to the Constitution of the church is ultra vires, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

(d) A declaration that since the income and expenditure of the Church are matters under the budgetary control of the Missionary Executive Council the operation of the finances of the church by the 1st defendant without rendering account is unconstitutional, null and void.

(e) Injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1-5 by themselves, servants and agents from operating the finances of the church otherwise than in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the church.

(f) Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, servants and agents from taking any steps whatsoever pursuant to the dissolution letter dated 22nd of April, 1992 pending the determination of the plaintiffs’ action.

(g) Injunction restraining the defend its from making any alteration whatsoever in the Constitution of the church, except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The defendants reacted to the above Amended Statement of Claim by filing an Amended Statement of Defence to be found at pages 44 – 47 of the record after which the defendants filed an application before the court challenging the jurisdiction of that court to hear and determine the suit as constituted, which application was dismissed by the trial court. The defendants were not satisfied with that ruling as a result of which they appealed to the Court of Appeal, Holden at Port Harcourt, in appeal No. CA/PH/238/99. In a judgment delivered on the 4th day of February, 2003, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is therefore a further appeal by the appellant.

The facts of the case relevant to this appeal are simple. Both parties are members of Christ Ascension Church of Nigeria but act in different capacities therein with the 1st defendant/appellant being the leader of the Church and is known by the title of Apostle. The 6th defendant/appellant is the registered trustee of the Church. The Church has branches in Enugu, Ehi Road, Aba etc. It is the complaint of the respondents that the 1st – 5th appellants have been interfering with how the Church is being organised and in the process, infringed on the respondents’ right to fair hearing as entrenched in the Constitution of the country in that the members of the disbanded District Youth Fellowship and National Youth Fellowship were denied the opportunity of defending themselves against allegations made against them before their dissolution. Their complaint also includes unconstitutional appointments by the 1st appellant, refusal to render account to members etc, etc.

The issue for determination, as stated in the appellants brief of argument filed on 28/5/2003 by learned Counsel for the appellants, O.A. OBIANWU ESQ, is:

Whether the court below was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case before it.

In arguing the issue, learned Counsel referred to section 695 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act and submitted that since the 6th appellant was incorporated under the Lands (Perpetual Succession) Act, it is deemed, in law, to have been incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act from 2nd January, 1990 when the said Act came into effect and that since the complaints of the respondents are mainly to the effect that the 1st-5th appellants unlawfully attempted to alter the name and Constitution of Christ Ascension Church of Nigeria; the said appellants, for 13 years misappropriated the funds of the said Church; converted Church’s property into private property and acted ultra vires the Constitution of the Church by dissolving the Youth Fellowship and expelling its members as well as other illegal acts, the proper court to adjudicate on the matter is, by the provisions of section 230(1)(e) of Decree 107 of 1993, the Federal High Court; that the lower court was wrong in making a distinction between the affairs of the Church and the 6th appellant, which distinction is at variance with the pleadings of the respondents which regarded the Registered Trustees and the Church as one and the same thing; that what was incorporated was the Church not the trustees as held by the lower court, which by holding contrary to the pleadings of the respondents, made a new case for the said respondents which practice is frowned upon by the courts, relying on Oredoyin vs Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (p,. 114) 172; Olumolu vs. Islamic Trust of Nigeria (1996) 2 NWLR (pt. 430) 253; Company Law and Practice in Nigeria, (3rd ed) by J.O. ORUJO page 546; that it is not correct that there was no complaint against the 6th appellant or how its affairs as a corporate body is being run as held by the lower court in view of the allegation by the respondents that the appellants are attempting to change the name of the Church and the Constitution and that the appellants are plundering the financial resources of the Church to their personal needs; that the lower court also erred in holding that the internal wrangling of members of the Church has nothing to do with the Companies and Allied Matters Act as the complaints of the respondents are fundamental and go to the root of the Church as incorporated; that section 681 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act makes provision for amendment of the Constitution of incorporated association of trustees while section 680 contains the procedure for altering the name of the Association. Learned Counsel then proceeded to cite other sections of the Act which authorises the appellants to do what they are accused of doing and stated that for the complaints of the respondents to be resolved, recourse must be made to the provisions of the Act; that since the complaints “relate to amendment of the Constitution and name, misapplication of income and property which are specifically provided for by the Act, then the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act is brought into play thus bringing the matter within the provisions of section 230(1) (e) of Decree 107 of 1993” despite the claim for expulsion of certain members of the Church as the law is that a court must have jurisdiction to determined all the claims before it to assume jurisdiction, relying on Tukur vs Government of Gongola State (1989) 4NWLR (pt. 117) 577 and urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the appellants and allow the appeal.