STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS TO BE TAKEN FIRST BEFORE ANY STEP IN THE PROCEEDING

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Generally, the rules of this Court allow a respondent to rely on a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal. The purpose of the objection is to bring the appeal to an end after being discovered to be incompetent and or fundamentally deceptive. In either case, it will be unnecessary to continue with the appeal once an objection is raised, without disposing of same. In other words, the Court is expected to deal with and dispose of a preliminary objection once raised by a respondent before taking any further step in the appeal. See; General Electric Company Vs. Harry Ayoade Akande & Ors (2010) 12 (Pt.2) SCM 96; Lamidi Rabiu Vs. Tola Adebajo (2012) 6 SCNM 201; Udenwa & 1 Ors Vs Uzodinma & 1 Ors (2012) 12 (Pt.2) 472 at 483.

— O. Ariwoola, JSC. Galadima v. State (2017) – SC.70/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

preliminary objection

INCLUDING NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN BRIEF

‘Thus, a respondent who has any application to make in respect of a pending appeal, can without the leave of this court, raise the objection in a Respondents’ notice in his brief of argument, and proffer argument in support of the objection, in his brief of argument, without necessarily filing a Notice of Preliminary objection, formally. The essence of indicating in the respondents’ brief of argument, a notice of Preliminary objection is to enable the appellant to respond to it in a Reply brief of argument, upon the service of the respondents’ brief of argument on the appellant. The supreme court in Charles Chikwendu Odedo v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (2008) 7 SCNJ 1 at pg.25, provided a guide as to how a preliminary objection can be raised in a brief of argument. It is to be raised under a conspicuous title or heading of “PRELIMINARY OBJECTION” followed by the grounds of the objection and supported with the argument thereon. Further see. Chief Emmanuel Osita Okereke v. Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and Ors (2008) 5 SCNJ 1; Ralph Uwazurike v. Attorney General of the Federation (2007) 2 SCNJ 369 at P.380; Ajide v. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248. I have perused the Respondents’ briefs of argument dated 14th March, 2011 and at page 3: paragraph 3.00, the NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION was conspicuously given therein; the grounds for the objection were also stated and thereafter the arguments on the preliminary objection were proffered by learned to the respondents. I am therefore satisfied that the notice of preliminary objection, by the respondents, is competent and I shall proceed to consider and determine it.’

— T.S. YAKUBU, JCA. Fayose v ICN (2012) – CA/AE/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION?

A Preliminary Objection as a matter of law is a process or procedure via which a party to an action may truncate the proceedings therein on account of a fundamental defect in the way the matter is constituted, which renders the taking of further action in the proceedings a meaningless waste of time and effort.

– Tukur JCA. Odulate v. FBN (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

AFFIDAVIT SHOULD BE FILED WHERE THERE ARE ISSUES OF FACTS IN PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

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

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT IS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AS FAILURE AMOUNTS TO DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING

It is glaring that the Tribunal lumped several preliminary objections together, without considering each of them and the issues raised in each, dismissed them. The exact text of its decision reads thusly – “the several preliminary objections to the competence of the 1st petitioner as a candidate in the election and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to determine the said petition are hereby dismissed.” This amounts to sweeping aside the objections without hearing or determining them. The dismissal of the objections did not proceed from the determination of any of the objections. It violates the fair trial of the objections and the entire petition and the right of the parties to fair hearing. This feature renders Tribunal’s judgment a nullity.

— E.A. Agim, JSC. Oyetola v INEC & Ors. (2022) – SC/CV/508/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE AFFIDAVIT MAY OR MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMPANY A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

Chief Hilary Ezugwu & Anor. v. IGP & 6 ors unreported Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1168/2010, the ruling of which was delivered on 31 March 2010 per Affen J (now JCA) presents a similar scenario as the instant case. In Chief Hilary Ezugwu & Anor. v. IGP & 6 Ors., a preliminary objection was raised by the defendants on grounds of non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action, and abuse of court process. Although no affidavit in support was filed, a photocopy of the writ of summons, statement of claim and allied court processes of another case, suit No. FCT/ HC/CV/1959/2009, upon which the defendants relied as the basis for alleging abuse of court process, were annexed to the preliminary objection. On the propriety of annexing court processes (or indeed any other document) to a bare notice of preliminary objection, Affen J (now JCA) held thus: “… The law, as I have always understood it, is that a party raising a preliminary point of objection who intends to rely on facts ought to file a supporting affidavit deposing copiously to those facts. It is only where the objection is predicated on grounds of law and reliance is placed on documents already before the court that no need arises for the objector to file a supporting affidavit. Like pleadings, the object of a notice of preliminary objection is to give notice to the opposing side of the case to be made which enables each party to prepare for arguments upon the issues subject matter of the objection and this saves the opposing party from being taken by surprise. See CHIEF WILSON OKOI & ORS v CHIEF IBIANG & ORS [2002] 20 WRN 146 at 155.” It seems to me that there is no hard and fast rule that a preliminary objection need be supported by an affidavit so long as enough material is placed before the trial court on which it can judicially and judiciously pronounce on the preliminary objection. Where the alleged offending writ or petition ex facie contains the relevant information against which an objection is being raised, the necessity to rely on affidavit evidence does not arise.

— B.B. Kanyip J. FG v. ASUU (2023) – NICN/ABJ/270/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN TO FILE A MOTION ON NOTICE VS PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

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

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.