A non-juristic person can neither sue nor be sued for want of capacity

SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT v. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON FRIDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Suit No: SC.203/2008 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JSC OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, JSC KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JSC AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JSC Between

SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT Appellant And 1. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. HAJIYA MAIMUNA BELLO AJANAH

-

3. HAJIA HADIZA ABDULLAHI Respondent(s) LEAD JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. FACTS OF THE CASE

THE Appellant who was the Respondent at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, as Plaintiff at the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, took out a writ of summons filed along with it, a statement of claim against the Respondents who were the Appellants at the Court of Appeal and Defendants at the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The matter was before Kolajo, J. and several applications filed by the Respondents/defendants in the matter were heard and refused by Kolajo, J. retired, before the matter was finally determined and it was consequently re-assigned to I. U. Bello, J. (as he then was). On the 30th of September, 2001, Bello, J. took a motion for stay of proceedings which he granted pending appeal. The Respondents alleged that the Appellant, without any notice to them, moved the trial Court to discharge the order of stay of proceedings earlier granted by the same Court when they were served with notice of motion for judgment filed by the Appellant. The Respondents filed a motion for the stay of proceedings and a motion for preliminary objection to the Appellant’s motion for judgment. The trial Court refused both applications which were struck out. What was then left before the trial Court was the Appellant’s motion for judgment and counter affidavit of the Respondents. The Respondents meanwhile, had filed an interlocutory appeal entered by the Court of Appeal as NO.CA/A/32/2002. The trial Court overruled the objection of the Respondents and entered judgment for the Appellant based on the motion for judgment. The Respondents were dissatisfied and filed their appeal to the Court of Appeal, praying the Court to strike out the interlocutory appeal NO.CA/A/32/2003 on the ground that it was similar to the substantive appeal filed. From the records, both parties pursued to its logical conclusion, Appeal No. CA/A/113/2004, where the Court of Appeal held that the Respondents were agencies or agents of the Federal Government and as such, the FCT High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s action despite the fact that its claim was based on a simple contract. That is the basis of the Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination are:

1. Whether it is proper for the respondents to maintain Appeals NO.CA/A/32/2002, CA/A/113/2003 and CA/A/113/2004 before the Lower Court or neglect to serve their Notice of Appeal, Record of Proceedings and appellant’s brief in Appeal No. CA/A/113/2004 on the appellant. 2. Whether the 1st respondent is indeed an agency of the Federal Government. 3. Whether the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of simple contracts involving agencies of the Federal Government. 4. Whether the respondents validly raised ground 2 of their grounds of appeal which challenges the legal personality of the appellant. COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS

On Issue1, Learned counsel for the appellant in his submission, stated that there were three different appeal numbers on various processes before the Court of Appeal. The Record of Proceedings served on the Appellant is in respect of appeal NO.CA/A/32/2001. The Appellant’s brief is in respect of Appeal No. CA/A/113/2003. The Appellant raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the respondents were maintaining multiple appeals at the same time. The Court of Appeal, learned counsel submitted, completely neglected Appellant’s complaint in the preliminary objection and said the appeal before it is CA/A/113/2004 and that Court did not ask the Respondents to explain the three different appeal numbers. Learned counsel urged that maintaining these three appeals at once is an abuse that warrants the dismissal of the appeal No. CA/A/113/2004. He cited the cases of African Reinsurance Corp v. Construction Nigerian Ltd. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 609; (2003) LPELR-215(SC) among others. He urged the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

On this issues, learned counsel to the Respondents conceded that Appeal NO.CA/A/32/2002 existed as an interlocutory appeal initially. He argued that no appeal NO.CA/A/113/2003 ever existed. If it ever existed at all, learned counsel argued that it may have been as a result of misnumbering caused at the Registry in the Court of Appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that assuming, without conceding, that the said appeals existed, there is nothing in law that forbids the filing of more than one appeal. Learned counsel argued further that the respondents/appellants filed, maintained and pursued to its logical conclusion, only one substantive appeal No CA/A/113/2004, in which the Court of Appeal delivered judgment. He cited in support, Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.68) 39; (1988) LPELR22(SC).

On issues 2 and 3, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the 1st Respondent is not an agency of the Federal Government but an agency of a State pursuant to the com - bined effect of Sections 2(2),3(1), 298 299, 301(a) and 302 of the 1999 Constitution. Section 299, he argued further, provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as if it were one of the States of the Federation. He cited and relied on what he termed, “Locus Classicus” on the matter, the case of Okoyode v. FCDA (2005) 7 WRN 97 at page 132 and 151; (2005) LPELR-41123(CA), where he said the Court of Appeal held all authorities or bodies created for the sake of the Federal Capital Territory, including the Minister or Ministry in charge of administer - ing the territory are not agencies of the Federal Government, relying on the case of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. Olloh (2002) 30 WRN 1 (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt.773) at page 175; (2002) LPELR-1271(SC), where this Court held that Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria is not an agency of the Federal Government even though the word “federal” is part of its name. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged this Court to hold that the 1st Respondent is not an agency of the Federal Government subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Responding to Issues 2 and 3, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Court of Appeal rightly dealt with what the trial Court neglected as fundamental as it is. He submitted that the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory is not an agency of a State but an agency of the Federal Government. Learned counsel made reference to various constitutional provisions of the 1999 Constitution; Federal Capital Territory Act, Cap.f6 LFN, 2004, Vol.6 and judicial authorities. From the provisions of the Act as cited by the learned counsel in his brief of argument, he submits that the Federal Capital Territory is not a State and therefore, the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory cannot be regarded or treated as a State agency but an agency of the Federal Government. Consequently, it is argued further that the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as held by the Court below.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES

On issue one, the Court considered the findings and holdings of the Court of Appeal and held that there is no any pending appeal between the parties before it other than appeal NO.CA/A/113/2004, upon which the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the 13th day of February, 2008. In resolving issues 2 and 3, the Court stated the barometers or determinants of jurisdiction of a Court. See Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.68) 39; (1988) LPELR-22(SC). Finding further on the issues, the Court cited the case of Felix Onuorah v. K. R. P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 393; (2005) LPELR-2707(SC), on the issue of when the Federal High Court could exercise its exclusive jurisdiction and when it loses that exclusivity in favour of State High Courts and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Thus, by virtue of Section 251(p) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Court held that the Federal High Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction, inter alia, on matters pertaining to the administration or management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. In the appeal on hand, the Court held that the Appellant’s claim as stated earlier, does not fall within the ambit of Section 251(p) of the 1999 Constitution.

On the Appellant’s issue 4, the Court noted that there was nothing before the Court to show that the Plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a business name under part B of Companies and Allied Act, which requires disclosure of the business name registration number as required by Section 582 1(c) of the Act. It was also not disclosed whether the Plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a partnership. Thus, the Plaintiff/respondent/appellant was found to be an unregistered outfit under the laws operating in Nigeria. The Court noted that the consequence is that a non-juristic person can neither sue nor be sued, for want of capacity. The Court held that the Defendants/respondents had the right to raise this issue as it affects the trial Court’s jurisdiction.

HELD

In the final analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Appearances

ISAAC OKPANACHI with him, O. O. IFIJEH, ESQ - For Appellant MELA A. NUNGE with him, SYLVESTER OGBELU and O.L. OKEKE, ESQ - For Respondents.