The Tansian University in Umunya town, Oyi Local Government Area of Anambra State has dragged Ranent Industries Company Limited (1st Respondent/Applicant) and Chief Romanus Ezeonwuka (2nd Respondent/applicant) to the Supreme Court in the matter of co-ownership, co-founder ship, finance partnership, control and management of the institution which temporary site at Oba, Idemili South LGA is in contention.
The Court of Appeal had on May 14, this year dismissed the application filed by Dr. E.S.C. Obiorah for the Appellant/Defendant (University) against 1st Respondent/Applicant and 2nd Respondent/Applicant represented by Barrister Anthony Nwankwo challenging the order of lower court which ordered the 2nd Respondent/Plaintiff to repossess the said entire property and pay millions of Naira as General Damages for possessing and occupying the Plaintiff’s
The judgment was in respect of the Appeal Suit No. CA/AW/67/2019 before the three-man Panel made up of Justices Oboetonbara Daniel-Kalio, Isa Gafai and Musa Mainoma who resolved three out of the four contentious issues in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents/ Applicants respectively.
The judges, however, set aside the lower court’s order that that “the Defendant Judgment debtor vacate with immediate effect the temporary site of the 1st Defendant located at the premises of the Applicants at Umuogidi, Oba in Idemili South Local Government Area of the State, declaring that the Consent Judgment did not provide for such immediate vacation.
Speaking on the sideline of the suit filed at the Supreme Court, Obiorah (SAN) explained: “We went on appeal to Supreme Court to rectify what we believe is an anomaly.
The Consent Judgment is in limbo because the Court of Appeal didn’t say it upholds it. There’s nothing they can enforce. “The Substantive issue was won by the University..The can’t enforce the Court iof Appeal judgment because nothing was given them as there was no order. What they won was: Whoever that claims ownership of the site should not enter into it. The University was the only one that got an enforceable order because the court gave an order that is enforceable, Obiorah (SAN) added.
The copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by Obiorah (SAN) to the Supreme Court challenging the whole decision of the Court of Appeal was received on May 15, this year, a copy of which was obtained by our Correspondent.
He insisted that the other Respondents/Applicants neither met up with the deadline to challenge his suit nor appeal against their lost reliefs at the Court of Appeal. Obiorah (SAN) had challenged the suit on the ground that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to affirm the order of the trial court that attempted to enforce judgment that was a nullity having been obtained against a non-legal person and based on an incompetent and fundamentally- defective originating process in Suit No. HID/89/2008 which had no properly-laid foundation.
qHe contended that the Respondent obtained a purported consent judgment in Suit No. HID/89/2008 which was a nullity ab initio and can never ripen into a valid judgment by both the effluxion of time and the fact that the Applicant against whom the said judgment was obtained was not a juristic person, adding that the Writ of Summon/Originating Summons that founded the judgment was neither signed by the Respondents nor their legal practitioner as required by.law.
He pointed out further that a judgement whether consent or full judgment can be challenged at any time, even at the time of any attempt to enforce it.. Obiorah (SAN) also predicated his appeal to the Supreme Court on the allegation that the court erred in law in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal which challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the consent judgment in Suit No. HID/89/2008 by granting, like a Father Christmas, reliefs not contemplated by the parties to the said consent judgment and which reliefs were not part of Respondent’s claim, including the one to vacate with immediate effect the temporary site of the 1st Respondent whereby occasionning miscarriage of justice.
Going further, he based his ground of appeal on his opinion that the Court of Appeal violated the Appellant’s right to fair hearing by affirming the decision of the trial court in Motion No. HID/864m/2018 which held that ‘ “there is no no counter affidavit to the affidavit in support of application so the evidence is here in deemed admitted and court can act on some, ‘ ” and then entering an or of execution of the consent judgment on 11th February 2019.
The Counsel to the Appellant queried the learned trial judge for ignoring the Motion No. HID/181m/2019 for stay of proceedings which was filed on February 2, 2019 and the Appeal No..CA/E/67/2029 but proceeded to hear the Respondents’ Motion No. HID/864m/2018 on February 11, 2019 and granted same, even affirming decision of the trial court that ordered execution in the matter so as to destroy the Appellants right of appeal in Suit No. CA/E/67/2019 and destroy the “res.”
In addition, he urged the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the lower court and entered judgment for the Applicant.
It would be recalled that at the lower court, Barrister Nwankwo, the Counsel to the Applicants in suit No. HID/89/2008 had sought for a declaration that the 1st Plaintiff (now 2nd Respondent) is entitled to the right of occupancy over the said land at Oba, registered in the Land Registry Enugu (now Awka) subject to refund by the 2nd Defendant of any money the 2nd Defendant paid to the bank for the redemption the 2nd Plaintiff’s indebtedness to the bank.
Nwankwo (Esquire) had filed an application for declaration that the 2nd Plaintiff is a co-owner, co-proprietor and co-investor with the 2nd Defendant University with the 2nd Defendant and is entitled to reap his investment thereof, which he made by contributing to the 2nd Plaintiff’s property at Oba registered as No.60 at Page 60 in Volume 1269 of the Land Registry Enugu (now Awka) . he equally sought for a declaration that the 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to the right of occupancy over the property registered as No. 65 in Volume 1011 in the Land Registry Office in Enugu (now Awka).
Moreover, the Applicants through their lawyer (Nwankwo) prayed for an Order that, in the event that the 2nd Plaintiff is not declared a co-investor and co-founder of the 2nd Defendant University, the 2nd Plaintiff shall upon refund by the 2nd Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant of money paid by the latter to the bank in redemption of the 2nd Plaintiff’s indebtedness, repossess its entire property at Oba, registered as No. 60 at Page 60 in Volume 1269 of the said Registry..
On behalf of his clients, Nwankwo also demanded for an Order that the 2nd Plaintiff being entitled to the right of occupancy over the land at Oba registered as No. 65 at 65 in Volume 1011 of the afore-mentioned Registry shall repossess the said entire property and payment of N200 million as General Damages for possessing and occupying the Plaintiff’s properties.
Finally, the Counsel to the Applicants sought for an Order of Injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, ,privies, agents, and otherwise upon the Plaintiff’s repossessing the said properties at Oba from entering thereon.
The Court in its judgment noted that the Appellant/Defendant was challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the action in view of the juristic personality of the Appellant, but frowned upon the fact that the Appellant waited until eight years (out of time) after the Consent Judgment was delivered at the lower court in favour of the Respondent to express its dissatisfaction after an application by the latter triggered execution of the judgment.
The Court equally resolved in favour of the Respondent on the issue of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain and grant Respondents’ Motion No. HID/864m/2018, clarifying that the Notice of Appeal against the ruling of 11th February 2019 in the said Motion had not been entered and the process stopped at the stage of filing only the Notice of Appeal.