CASE TITLE: ARIBISALA v. AMCON (2025) LPELR-80536(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court striking out the application of the Appellant to strike out the suit for an incompetent writ of summons.
The Appellant was sued by the Respondent at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division in relation to his receivership/managership of Delta Steel Company Plc. The reliefs sought were, inter alia, for the Appellant to give account of all the funds and properties that came into his possession by virtue of his being Receiver/Manager of the said company. After the Respondent filed its Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and accompanying documents, the Appellant entered conditional appearance and filed a motion on notice praying dismissal or striking out this suit on the incompetence of the writ of summons.
In opposition, the Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit and a Written Address, and in response, the Appellant filed a Reply on Points of Law.
In the Appellant’s Affidavit and Written Address, it was averred and contended that the Writ of Summons by which the action was commenced was incompetent, having not been signed by the Respondent as Plaintiff or its counsel. Specifically, it was contended that the signature of the Appellant’s counsel was not on the reverse side of the writ but on a loose sheet of paper attached thereto. On the flipside, the arguments and averments of the Respondent were to the effect that the Writ is valid having met the requirements of the Rules.
After taking arguments of counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered his ruling, wherein he held that the Writ was prepared as prescribed by the Rules of the trial Court and that same was indeed signed by Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, learned counsel for the Respondent. In all, the prayer for the striking out/dismissal of the action was refused.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal, which held in its judgment that there was nothing in the Rules of Court that mandated the name and signature of counsel to be on the reverse side of the Writ. The Court also held that the Writ of Summons complied with the provisions of Rules. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Further dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
In determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the issue raised by the Respondents and modified it thus:
Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Writ of Summons by which the Respondent commenced suit No. FHC/L/CS/513/2015: Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria vs. Chief Ajibola A. Aribisala, SAN is competent in law and that the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- WRIT OF SUMMONS: Position of the law on pagination of writ of summons and page on which endorsement must be made
- COURT- JURISDICTION: Meaning and importance of jurisdiction
- COURT- JURISDICTION: Conditions that must be satisfied before a Court is competent to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of any matter
- JUSTICE- SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: Attitude of courts to ensure substantial justice is done
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: When can the issue of jurisdiction be raised and who can raise same
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: Whether validity of originating process is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ORIGINATING PROCESS: Importance of an originating process; effect of a defective originating process
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ENDORSEMENT OF WRIT: Instance(s) where a writ will be held to have been duly endorsed by a Legal Practitioner
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
