This is more so as the whole essence of preliminary objection is to foreclose hearing the appeal. – Chukwuma-Eneh JSC. Yaro v. Arewa CL (2007)
SHARE ON
By its nature and necessary implications, the preliminary objection has to be taken first.
– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)
A Preliminary Objection is an objection that if upheld, would render further proceedings before a Court impossible or unnecessary – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. See also Akpan V. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421, wherein this held – An objection in law portrays a formal opposition of an objector against the happenings of an event which has already taken place or is about to take place now or in the future and the objector seeks the Court’s immediate ruling or intervention on the point. A Preliminary Objection seeks to provide an initial objection before the actual commencement of the thing being objected to.
— A.A. Augie, JSC. Universal Properties v. Pinnacle Comm. Bank, NJA, Opia, Heritage, Fatogun (SC.332/2008, Friday, April 08, 2022)
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED EVEN WHEN NO PLEADINGS HAVE BEEN FILED
In Arjay Limited & Ors. v. Airline Management Support Ltd. (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt.820) 577 at 601 per Onu, JSC (now of blessed memory) wherein it was held that: ‘there is a difference between objection to the Jurisdiction and a demurrer. I also agree with them that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court can be raised at any time even when there are no pleadings filed and that a party raising such an objection need not bring the application under any rule of court and it can be brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Thus, for this reason, once the objection to the jurisdiction of the court is raised the court has inherent power to consider the application even if the only process of court that has been filed is the writ of summons and affidavits in support of an interlocutory injunction.’
Grounds (v), (vi) and (vii) of the preliminary objection themselves raise issues of facts, at best issues of mixed law and facts, for which the defendant ought to have filed a supporting affidavit. The defendant did not. Grounds (v), (vi) and (vii) are respectively stated to be thus: (v) The Plaintiffs’ Suit does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants. (vi) The Plaintiffs’ Suit is lacking in bona fide, as it was filed to harass, irritate and embarrass the Defendant, which constitutes an abuse of judicial process. (vii) The ministers (sic) Referral offends the twin pillar of Justice – nemo judex in causa sua and audi alterem partem. These are not grounds that can be resolved without the facts upon which they are based — facts that ought to come by way of an affidavit from the defendant.
— B.B. Kanyip J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022
In Ama v. Nwankwo [2007] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 552 at 578, Rhodes-Vivour, JCA (as he then was) stated the position of the law relating to preliminary objection vis-à-vis the necessity of filing a supporting affidavit thusly: Preliminary objection strictly speaking deals with law. Consequently there is no need for supporting affidavit, but the grounds of the objection must be clearly stated. For example, objection that court process has not been complied with, suit/process is an abuse of process. When, as often happens a preliminary objection strays from law to facts of the case, the onus is on the party relying on the preliminary objection to justify the facts, and this can only be done by filing an affidavit. A preliminary objection may be supported by affidavit depending on what is being objected to. If the preliminary objection is on law, an affidavit is unnecessary, but if on facts an affidavit is mandatory (emphasis is this Court’s).
— B.B. Kanyip J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022
In law therefore, it is only when a Respondent is challenging the one or more grounds of appeal but not the entire appeal that resort must be had to motion by notice to strike out the incompetent ground(s) of appeal. However, where it is the competence of the entire appeal that is being challenged the proper method is by means of a notice of preliminary objection as rightly employed by the Respondent in this appeal. The Respondent’s notice of preliminary objection was filed on 23/2/2017, that way beyond the three clear days requirement of the rules of this Court, was served and duly responded to by the Appellant in their Appellants’ Reply brief and therefore, the contention by the Appellants’ counsel in this regards is misconceived and hereby discountenanced. I shall say no more! See Clement Odunukwe v. Dennis Ofomata(2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. See also Ndigwe v. Nwude (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 626) 314; NEPA v. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 627; Muhammed v. Military Administrator of Plateau State (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 740) 524; NDIC v. Oranu (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 183.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. University of Lagos v. Mbaso (2018) – CA/L/775/2016
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry