Chief John C. Uzokwe V. Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Limited (2007)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.
This is an appeal against the Ruling delivered on 18th July, 2005 by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja presided over by Hon. Justice Mohammed Dodo. The lower court having opined in the Ruling to the effect that the cause of action in the instant case and principal activities therein occurred in Kaduna, which is outside its jurisdiction, held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The court consequently disqualified itself on the ground of jurisdiction and struck out the case.
There are two Records of Appeal in this matter -(i) the main Record and (ii) the Supplementary Record. The Ruling of the lower court at pages 77-88 of the main Record was sequel to the filing on the 29th June, 2005 of a process headed “Preliminary Objection” dated 27th June, 2005 by the Defendant (now Respondent). The process is at page 49 of the main Record and the prayers set out therein read as follows: –
“1. An order striking out this suit on ground that the honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same; and/or
- An order setting aside the Court processes in this suit inclusive of service thereof on the Defendant and directing on the principle of “forum conveniens” that the matter be filed, heard and/or tried in Kaduna, in the Kaduna Judicial Division of Kaduna State of Nigeria”
The suit the subject of this appeal was commenced by the plaintiff (now Appellant) before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja by the issuance of a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the 7th day of October, 2004. The Appellant however first procured the leave of the lower court to enable him serve all processes filed in respect of the case on the Respondent at its head office in Kaduna (being out of the jurisdiction of the lower court) before the aforementioned processes were served on the said Respondent. (See pages 1-3 and 15 respectively of the main Record). The Respondent filed a Statement of Defence dated 25th February, 2005 but necessary order of court was procured to regularise the lateness in the filing of the said Statement of Defence. An Amended Statement of Defence was subsequently filed the necessary order of court in that regard having been duly procured. The Respondent never took objection to the lower court as being the proper venue for the trial of the instant case or the issues raised in the Appellant’s Statement of Claim in either the ” Statement of Defence or the Amended Statement of Defence. It was when the case was called for hearing on 24th May, 2005 that the Respondent for the first time; orally raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the case. Hearing was therefore adjourned to enable the Respondent file Its objection to the jurisdiction of the court. On 29th June, 2005 the Respondent duly filed the aforementioned application dated 27th June, 2005 seeking for the striking out of the instant action for want of jurisdiction.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the lower court, appealed against the same by a Notice of Appeal dated 28lh July, 2005 and filed on 29til July, 2005. The said Notice of Appeal
contains one ground of appeal. The said ground of appeal with its Particulars read thus: –
“1. That the learned trial judge, Hon. Justice Mohammed Dodo, erred or misdirected himself in Law when he held that
“All well said and done, it is the opinion of this Honourable Court that the cause of action and principal activities and action in this matter arose in Kaduna which is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. For these reasons I hold that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at this stage.
In view of all the above having disqualified itself on the ground of jurisdiction it is hereby decreed that the matter is hereby struck out accordingly”.
And (sic) this led to a miscarriage of justice.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR OR MISDIRETION IN LAW
(a) The Court in coming to this “opinion” and decision did not properly consider that a cause of action
i) consists of every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.
ii) consists of two elements- the wrongful act of the defendant and the consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff arising from such wrongful act.
iii) Is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete.
(b) The Court, in coming to this decision, did not also properly direct Its mind that in order to determine whether a cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and where such cause of action accrued only the Writ of Summons and Statement or (sic) Claim filed in the suit should be considered, and. that if he had properly so directed his mind, he would have found out that
i) paragraphs 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the Statement of Claim and the claims there under clearly allege facts which not only show that the wrongful acts of the defendant against the plaintiff occurred at Abuja but also that the damages suffered by the plaintiff accrued solely at Abuja in consequence of the said acts.
ii) the Court, consequently, had jurisdiction to try the matter before it in accordance with the dictates of Order 9 Rule 4(1) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Civil Procedure Rules, 2004.”
The appeal was entertained on 2/6/2008. M.N. Chukwuma, learned lead counsel for the Appellant in urging the Court to allow the appeal, relied upon and adopted the Appellant’s brief of argument dated 30th November, 2006 and filed 31st January, 2007.
I.K. Ijomah, learned counsel for the Respondent in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal likewise relied on and adopted the Respondent’s brief of argument dated 10th May, 2007 but deemed as having been properly filed and served on 15th October 2007.
A sole question was formulated for the determination of this appeal in the Appellant’s brief having regard to: (i) the prayers in the Respondent’s motion paper for striking out before the lower court; (ii) the facts deposed to in the Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit in opposition of the application for striking out; (iii) the Statement of Claim before the lower court; and (iv) the ground of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal. The Issue reads:
“Whether or Not the trial High Court sitting at Abuja had jurisdiction to try the suit before it.”
A sole Issue was likewise formulated for the determination of the appeal in the brief of the Respondent. The Issue reads: –
“Whether in the light of the clear provisions of Sections 2[2], 3[1], [2] & (4), sections 255[1] and 257 [similar to Sections 270[1], 272 applicable to State High Courts] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and/or determine the Appellant’s suit against the Respondent.”
The appeal will be determined on the Issue formulated by the Appellant.
Dwelling on the Issue for determination as formulated in the Appellant’s brief, Appellant’s counsel submitted that recourse should be had to the Rules of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in determining whether or not the said court has the jurisdiction to entertain the instant case. In this regard Order 9 Rule 4 Paragraph 1 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Rules of the said Court was referred to and it was submitted that, It is the prerogative of the Appellant to decide to file his suit where the Respondent resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arose; in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The case of Chief Peter Amadi Nwankwo & Anor vs. Ecumenical Development Society (EDCS) UA (2002) 1 NWLR (PT 749) 513 at 531 was cited in aid. It was submitted to the effect that the rule of Court in Order 9 Rule 4 (supra) did not dictate that “forum conveniens” is the only consideration in determining where a cause of action will be pursued and maintained. In other words, that the Defendant in a matter where the cause of action arose in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja cannot decide for the Plaintiff that such matter must be filed where the Defendant resides or carries on his business and purely for the convenience of the Defendant.
An extensive consideration of the term “cause of action” was embarked upon in the brief of the Appellant with various cases considered relevant being cited. The point was made that in order to ascertain “the cause of action and where the right of action accrued”; recourse should be had only to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. Reference was made to the Statement of Claim in the instant case and It was submitted to the effect that the lower court was the proper venue for the trial of the case as it has been disclosed therein (i.e. in the Statement of Claim) and clearly too, that the claim before the lower court was for damages suffered by the Appellant in the course of different arrests, detentions, tortures, harassments, intimidations, investigations, travels, habitation in hotels and payment of professional fees in the Appellant’s defence at Abuja against baseless, unjustified, unlawful and malicious allegations made to different authorities of the Federal Government of Nigeria at Abuja and instigated against him by the Respondent It was further submitted that the lower court was properly seised of the case because without the damages suffered by the Appellant, his cause of action cannot be complete to clothe him with the right to approach the court for redress. The point was made that though the Statement of Claim shows that the initial arrest of the Appellant was at Kaduna, the said arrest however only kick started other arrests, torture, detentions and damages suffered by Appellant at Abuja when he was taken there following the unlawful acts of the Respondent.
The issues of (i) legal capacity and power of the Court; and (ii) the locus where the cause of action arose; it was said are the matters that confer jurisdiction on the High Court of the Federal capital Territory sitting at Abuja to hear the instant suit.
The Court was urged to allow the appeal as (i) the cause of action in the instant case arose entirely or principally or very substantially at Abuja within the Federal capital Territory; and (ii) the consequential damages accrued entirely at Abuja. It was said that the lower court consequently is the proper locus for the trial of the case, as it is not only conferred with the legal capacity, power and authority to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy but also the exclusive geographical jurisdiction or venue to do so.
The Respondent in Its brief of argument concedes that recourse should be had to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in a suit in ascertaining what the cause of action is, and whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain the same. Reference was made to paragraphs 1, 2, 9, 27, 28 and 29 of the Statement of Claim which the Respondent considered relevant and it was submitted that it was clear therefrom that the ‘infraction, main gravamen and/or cause of action which formed the basis of the Appellant’s claims for damages in this suit arose on the 3rd September, 2001 in the Appellant’s residence at Kaduna. The case of Mosajo vs. Oyetayo [2003] 13 NWLR PART 837 page 340 at 349-350 was cited to bring out the legal concept of the terms
“cause of action” and “where the cause of action arose”. It was submitted to the effect that the consequences and/or results arising from the infraction/cause of action of the Appellant which arose in Kaduna as disclosed in the Statement of Claim cannot confer the lower court with jurisdiction to entertain the instant case. The case of Adigun VS. Ayinde (1993) 8 NWLR PART 313 page 516 at 534 was further cited in aid of the submission that the result and/or consequence(s) of an act, neglect or default do not amount to cause of action.
The Respondent submitted to the effect that the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the instant case cannot properly be hinged on the provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the said Court as the issue is a constitutional one having regard to the fact that the lower court is a creation of the 1999 Constitution and derives its jurisdiction therefrom. Various cases relevant to the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a court were cited in the Respondent’s brief.
Having regard to the submissions of both learned counsel in this appeal, it would appear that the point on which they are not ad idem is whether the High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja has the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the Appellant’s case. The 1999 Constitution in section 299 makes its provisions applicable to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States in the Federation and with particular reference to judicial powers vested in the courts of a State; the judicial powers of the said Federal capital Territory are vested in courts established for it The High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja is definitely one of the courts established for the said Territory. see sections 6(5)(d) and 257 of the 1999 Constitution. The law is settled that the question of territorial jurisdiction is an indispensable constituent of the power of the High Courts of the States to adjudicate on matters brought before them. In this regard see the cases of RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA &. ANOR V. SPECIALIST KONSULT (2005) All FWLR (pt. 254) 875; SUP. APOSTLE S.A. ALAO &. 7 ORS V. MOST ELDER APOSTLE ADETOLA OSINOWO & 3 ORS (2005) All FWLR (Pt.250) 190; and DR. CHRIS NGIGE & ANOR V. HON. NELSON ACHUKWU & ANOR (2005) All FWLR (pt.247) 1545. As earlier stated, the provisions of the 1999 Constitution are applicable to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it is one of the States of the Federation. (See section 299). It would therefore appear dear that just as the territorial jurisdictions of States High Court by virtue of the 1999 Constitution are restricted to the geographical areas covered by the respective States, the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja is likewise restricted to the geographical area covered by the said Federal capital Territory. Seethe case of FELIX ONUORAH V. KADUNA FEFINIG &. PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 256) 1356.which decides among others that it is not the rules of court that vests jurisdiction in the court but rather the statute creating the courts. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is a creation of the Constitution and therefore derives its jurisdiction (and this includes territorial) from the said Constitution.
The provision of Order 9 Rule 4 Paragraph 1 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja relied upon by the Appellant in arguing that the lower has jurisdiction over the instant case reads: –
“All other suits shall where the Defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arose in the Federal Capital Territory be commenced and determined in the High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja.”
The law is settled when it comes to the interpretation of the provisions of statutes; and it is that they must be construed literally and the words therein given their ordinary meaning. See NZE BERNARD CHIGBU V. TONIMAS NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 320) 984 at 998; and NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY PLC v. LOTUS PLASTICS LIMITED & ANOR [2006] All FWLR (pt. 227) 1023 at 1040 Suffice it to say that the same principle applies to the interpretation of the provisions of Rules of Court which are subsidiary legislations. See MR. MAZIEN FARDOUN & ANOR v. MBC INTERNATJQNAL BANK LIMITED [2006] All FWLR (pt. 297) 1130 at 1160 – 1161. Guided by the above principle of interpretation I am of the settled view that all that the provision of the Rule of Court re-produced hereinbefore has provided for is that in all other suits the court is to exercise its adjudicatory powers over (i) the defendant in a suit where the said defendant resides in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; (ii) the defendant in a suit where the defendant carries on business in the Federal Capita! Territory, Abuja; and (iii) whether or not the defendant resides or carries on business in the Federal capital Territory, Abuja once the cause of arose In the said Federal Capital Territory.
The lower court in its Ruling at pages 77-88 stated at page 85 in particular that: “Notably the disagreeing factor between the parties is not on the issue of where the defendant resides but where the cause of action arose.” It is not in doubt from what I have quoted, that the lower court clearly understood the point of disagreement of the parties. Now what is meant by the words ‘where the cause of action arose in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja’ as used in the provision under consideration? The word ‘arose’ is the past tense of the word ‘arise’ and ‘arisen’ is its past participle while ‘arising’ is its present participle. I am sure it cannot be disputed that the ordinary meaning of ‘arise’ include ‘occur’; ‘to appear’; ‘come into existence’; ‘be caused by something’ and ‘happen’. In coming to the conclusion that the cause of action in the instant case arose at Kaduna, the lower court gave due consideration to the averments in the Statement of Claim of the Appellant and relevant authorities that brought out the point that it is not the consequence(s) of an act complained of that determines when the cause of action arises but the date of the occurrence of the act or default. see Mosojo vs. Oyetayo (supra). I am in no doubt that the lower court was eminently right in this finding given the ordinary meanings of the word ‘arise’.
The provision of the rule of the lower court under consideration, in my view empowers the High Court of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja to exercise its adjudicatory power over persons sued as defendants who are resident in the Federal capital Territory, Abuja; or who earn their livelihood in the said Territory or where what is alleged to be the wrongful act of the person being sued as a defendant ‘occurred’; ‘came into existence’ or ‘happened’ in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, In other words where the person being sued as a defendant has no link with the geographical area of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja by virtue of residence or business; then he must have such a link by virtue of the fact that what he has done and which has given the plaintiff the right to ventilate his grievance in court ‘occurred’ or ‘came into existence’ or ‘happened’ in the geographical area of the Federal capital Territory, Abuja; before there is power in the lower court to entertain the case. The provision does not provide for substantial occurrence of the cause of action in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and it would appear that the Appellant is relying on substantial occurrence because he has chosen to equate the consequences of the alleged wrongful act of the Respondent with the date when the alleged wrongful act (which the Statement of Claim glaringly disclosed as having happened in Kaduna) actually occurred or happened. The cases have consistently showed that there is a difference between the date a cause of action arises or arose and when the cause of action accrues. See in this regard the case of ALHAJI MADI. MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & 1855. In the case the Supreme Court made it clear that it is after the cause of action is determined that the court can discern the time when the cause of action arose and that for this purpose the statement of claim should be read as a whole. Also relevant on this point is the case of PIUS NWAONU It ORS V. NZE THEO OSUCHUKWU &. ORS [2007] All FWLR (pt. 374) 313 at pages 332-333 where this Court held to the effect that a cause of action accrues to the plaintiff the very time the cause of action becomes complete and thus can commence and maintain the said action, All that the Appellant averred in the Statement of Claim as having happened to him in Abuja (i.e. the consequences of what happened or occurred to him at Kaduna) only went to complete his cause of action. The Appellant’s cause of action did not arise on the completion of the said consequences. Appellant’s cause of action arose immediately upon the happening or occurrence of the Respondent’s act that led to, or resulted in the consequences. Having regard to the averments in the Statement of Claim, I find the view expressed by the lower court in its Ruling to the effect that the cause of action in the instant case and principal activities occurred in Kaduna, which is outside its jurisdiction to be very correct.
The lower court having found that the cause of action in the instant case occurred in Kaduna and thereby that it had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter was by law bound to put an end to the proceeding. see MRS. MATILDA ADRONKE DAIRO V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC & ANOR [2007] All FWLR (pt. 392) 1846. This case again brings out the point, that just as the subject matter of a case has to come within the court’s jurisdiction, the court’s territorial jurisdiction and its composition are other essential aspects of jurisdiction that give competence to proceedings before a court. It is of no moment that the Appellant considers that the issue of the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the matter was raised mala fide. The law reports are replete with authorities decided by the Supreme Court and this Court that not only show the fundamental nature of jurisdiction to adjudication but that the said issue for this reason can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and even before the Supreme Court for the first time. Indeed the case of OWNERS OF M/V GONGOLA HOPE & ANOR V. SMURFIT CASES NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2007) All EWLR (Pt. 388) 1005 underscores the importance of any jurisdictional issue as such as the challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the lower to entertain the instant case has raised. In the case under reference, the Supreme Court said to the effect that jurisdiction because of its fundamental nature to the competence of adjudication, is one of the few exceptions where fresh issues may be raised without leave. That the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even at the Supreme Court and even by the court suo motu, and that leave may not be necessary because without the judicial competence to adjudicate everything done is a nullity. The lower court having regard to its Ruling was again very aware of the position of the law in this regard and gave effect to it appropriately.
In conclusion and from all that has been said above, the Issue for determination in this appeal is resolved against the Appellant. The lower court was very correct, and did not err or misdirect itself in law in coming to its decision striking out the instant case for lack of jurisdiction having regard to the averments in the Statement of Claim.
Appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Costs of N20,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
Other Citations: (2007)LCN/2493(CA)
