Nowadays, preliminary objections are filed once a Respondent notices any error in the Appellant’s processes. This is wrong. Where the Respondent complains of the competency of a ground of appeal as in this appeal, and the other grounds are in order, and can sustain the appeal, the Respondent ought to file a motion on Notice to strike out the incompetent grounds and not a preliminary objection.
– A. Aboki, JSC. Sani v. Kogi State (2021) – SC.1179/2019
SHARE ON
It is now trite law that a motion on notice is filed where a party intends to challenge the incompetence of one or two grounds of appeal in the presence of an existing valid ground(s), see Garba v. Mohammed (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Kente v. Ishaku (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 96; PDP v. Sheriff (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219; NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) LPELR 7812(SC), (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148; Cocacola (Nig.) Ltd. v. Akinsanya (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1593) 74; Ezenwaji v. UNN (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 45; Petgas Resources Ltd. v. Mbanefo (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 442; KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Aloma (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 473; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 14 175; Lawanson v. Okonkwo (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 77. UBN PLC V. Ravih Abdul & Co. Ltd. (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt 1659) 203; FRN v. Atuche (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 338; Lolapo v. COP (2019) 16 NWLR (1699) 476. Opeyemi v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 403. I have married the meat of the objection with the inelastic position of the law displayed above. The wisdom behind the comparison is not far-fetched. It is to ascertain if the objection is obedient to the law or desecrates it. An in-depth study of the objector’s objection, discernible from its arguments thereon, clearly, reveals that it mainly chastises the appellant’s grounds 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the notice of appeal. It is obvious that the objector’s objection spared grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19 of the notice of appeal. In other words, those grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19 are viable and valid with the potency to sustain the appeal. In the face of the existential validity of grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 – 19, the objector ought not to have filed a preliminary objection. The proper/appropriate process is an application (motion on notice) challenging the viability of those grounds.
— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)
“There is no doubt that in considering an application of this nature, which calls for the exercise of judicial discretion, the Court must satisfied itself that the reasons given by an Applicant are good and substantial and that on clear facts placed before the Court, the Applicant deserves to be granted the indulgence being sought.”
– M.L Abubakar, JCA. Amalai & Ors. v The Government Of Adamawa State & Ors. ( CA/YL/33M/2020)
It is an elementary but fundamental principle of our adversary system that an applicant is bound by the prayers in his motion. See A.C.B. Ltd. v. A.G. Northern Nigeria (1969) N.M.L.R. 231. — Karibi-Whyte JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)
There is no doubt that the law is settled that where there are pending applications before a court, the court is duty bound to rule on all applications before it before delivering its judgment. There are plethora of authorities in this regard. See Mobil v. Monokpo (2001) FWLR Pt.78 Pg.1210; Mokwe v. Williams (1997) 11 NWLR Pt.528 Pg.309; Savannah Bank Nig. Ltd v. SIO Corporation (2001) 1 NWLR Pt.693 Pg.194.
– H.M. Ogunwumiju, JCA. ITV v. Edo Internal Revenue (2014) – CA/B/20/2013
The Court of Appeal cannot go outside the terms of the motion however misconceived it is. It is bound by the terms or prayers in the motion filed. (Commissioner for Works Benue State v. Devcon Construction Co. Ltd. (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.83) 407 at 420). Since there was nothing to stay, the Court of Appeal was in error to have made the order prayed for.
— Agbaje JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)
It is a notorious and ancient principle of law that a motion, be it on notice or ex parte, is not self-executory. It has to be argued by its proponent/owner for a Court to be properly equipped with the requisite jurisdiction to rule, one way or the other, on it. Curiously, however, the first respondent, in its infinite wisdom, did not argue the application in its amended brief of argument. In glaring absence of not being argued, the application suffers from barrenness and de jure, abandoned. In that unenviable and pitiable state of abandonment, its fortune is obvious. It carries the liability of being struck out. Consequently, in due obeisance to the dictate of the law, I strike out the application on account of abandonment.
— O.F. Ogbuinya JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. Longterm Global Cap. Ltd. & Ors. (September 20 2021, ca/l/1093/2017)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry