Download PDF
This is a notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1st defendant on the 25th June 2012 against the hearing of the pending motions filed by the claimant and praying the court to dismiss/strike out the motions for want of jurisdiction and for being premature. The preliminary objection is brought upon the following grounds: 1. Sequel to the dismissal of defendant’s preliminary objection on18/4/2012, the defendant has appealed against the ruling and has filed a motion for stay of further proceedings in this matter which motion is still pending before this honourable court. 2. The motion for stay of further proceedings takes precedent over the motions for injunction filed by the claimant/applicant. 3. This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to grant an order against the 1st defendant whom the claimant/applicant claims it does not recognize or know. 4. The 1st defendant is not a proper party before this court against which the court can grant an order or relief. 5. The mandatory order sought by the claimant/applicant is incompetent and unknown to law and therefore cannot be granted. The preliminary objection is accompanied by a written address dated June 25 2012. The claimant in opposition filed a written address dated 10th July 2012. The 2nd defendant elected not to take part in this objection but to await the outcome. The 1st defendant raised the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the honourable court can hear the motions seeking for interlocutory orders against 1st defendant/respondent without first hearing and ruling on the motion for stay of further proceedings filed on 28th May, 2012 by the respondent. 2. Whether this honourable court has the jurisdiction to grant orders of injunction against a party who is not properly before the court being unrecognized and unknown to the claimant/applicant. 3. Whether the mandatory order sought by the claimant is competent and known to law. In its response, the claimant submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether the 1st defendants notice of preliminary objection dated 25th June 2012 is not abuse of court process and incompetent. I have carefully considered the written submissions and authorities referred to. This is the 2nd preliminary objection being filed by the 1st defendant in this suit. The 1st preliminary objection was dismissed in a considered ruling on the 18th April 2012. At the proceedings of the 30th May 2012 which was the next adjourned date the claimants counsel informed the court that he had two pending motions, one for an order of interlocutory injunction and the other for an order of mandatory injunction which he sought to move. Directions were given to the parties as to the filing of written addresses in respect of the motion and the matter adjourned to July 4, 2012. At no time during the proceedings did counsel to the 1st defendant seek to move the motion for stay of proceedings which he filed on the 28th May 2012 two days before the proceedings of the 30th May 2012. The claimant had not been served with the motion and as such it was not ripe for hearing. Rather than seek to move the motion for stay on the next adjourned date by which time the claimant had been served, counsel to the 1st defendant informed the court that he had filed this preliminary objection which had only just been served on the claimant in court and so the case had to be adjourned to enable it react. It seems to me that the purpose of this preliminary objection is to give a wrong impression that the 1st defendant has been prevented from moving the motion for stay of proceedings. This appears to be the purport of grounds 1 & 2 of the objection and issue 1 raised in the 1st defendant’s written address. Grounds 3 & 4 and issue 2 have already been determined in the considered ruling delivered on the 18th April 2012. By raising this same issue in this objection, counsel to the 1st defendant is asking the court to sit on appeal over its earlier decision which he claims to have filed an appeal against. This is unprofessional. Furthermore, in raising ground 5 and issue 3, counsel is surreptitiously arguing the pending application for a mandatory injunction which has not been moved. On the whole, I find that this preliminary objection has been brought simply to waste the valuable time of the court and the claimant and to prevent this matter from being heard and determined expeditiously. It is incompetent, mischievous and lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Costs of N30,000 is to be paid by the 1st defendant to the claimant. Ruling is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae