The Applicants, J. POCCO INTEGRATED SERVICES and OKWUDILI OKORO , through their team of Lawyers, led by F.N. Asogwa,Esq and Joachim Okechukwu Odo,Esq, Onitsha based Lawyers,filed SUIT NO:NSD/MG387/2024 & Motion NO:NSD/387M1/2024 in High Court 3 Mararaba,Gurku, Nasarawa State for an application for Orders of Certuorari, Prohibition And Injunction against the respondents,namely;His Worship Hon. I.A. IBRAHIM ESQ of Upper Area Court Karu II, Nasarawa State,now presided over by His Worship Hon.SALISU MOHAMMED,Esq,
OBISCO INTEGRATED RESOURCES LTD AND OBINNA MORRIS OBUTE.
Upon hearing, David Edoho,Esq,holding the brief of the applicants’ Counsel, for the application for leave and stay of further proceedings, HON.JUSTICE ALI TARI CHANGBO,on 26th day of June,2024 Ordered the upper Area Court,KARU 11 MASAKA to stay further proceedings in CASE NO. UACKRII/CR.30/2024 BETWEEN OBISCO INTEGRATED SERVICES LTD & ANOR VS. J. POCCO INTEGRATED SERVICES & ANOR, pending the determination of Motion On Notice.
The Applicants’ grounds for seeking the reliefs are as follows:
The 2nd Applicant resides and operates his business in Bridge Head Market, Onitsha, Anambra State outside the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Applicant is not a legal entity which can sue and be sued.
The alleged offence in which the 1st Respondent delivered a ruling in 22nd day of May, 2024 did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent’s court.
The contract that gave rise to the alleged offence happened in Anambra State and Delta State, outside Nasarawa State.
The ruling delivered on 22nd day of May, 2024 was made without jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent.
The condition precedent required for initiating this suit or case was not complied with.
The suit or case and the originating processes are incompetent and no court adjudicates over processes that are incompetent.
That one of the critical ways to acquire juristic personality is through statutory acceptance and recognition.
That a statute bestows a legal personality on a party thus: (a) under the name by which it may sue or be sued or (b) a right to sue or be sued by that name.
That only a juristic person known to law that can sue and be sued.
That the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this case because the 1st Applicant with the name sued as “J.POCCO INTEGRATED SERVICES.” is not a juristic person, hence the 1st Respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The originating process was signed by nameless or unknown person.
The process filed in Court must be signed with an accompanying name of the owner of the signature.
The originating process headed “Application for warrant of Arrest/Criminal summons, pursuant to sections 88 AND 89 OF THE Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Nasarawa State, 2017” is defective because there is no name of human person or legal entity known to the law that endorsed the signature thereof.
Originating process or processes filed in court must be dated for the court to have Jurisdiction.
The originating process in this case was not dated by the author or authors.
The contract that gave rise to this case took place in Asaba, Delta State and Onitsha, Anambra State which is outside the jurisdiction of Upper Area Court, Karu II, Nasarawa State.
The Applicants do not know and has never visited Nasarawa State, hence they cannot be hauled before the 1st Respondent Court in Karu II, Nasarawa State.
The transaction between the Applicants and 2nd and 3rd Respondents are mere civil transaction without any criminal connotations.
The complainants failed to endorse their own address of service on the originating process hence it robs the 1st Respondent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The authority of the court is exercised within a clearly defined area. The area is referred to as the territory jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction is statutory. It is conferred on the court by statute.
By section 15 (1) of Area Court law, all area courts including the upper Area Court have jurisdiction to try only person or persons who consents or consent to be tried by an Area Court. The Applicants did not submit nor consent to the jurisdiction of the 1st Respondent hence they filed Notice of preliminary objection that gave rise to the ruling which is subject of this application for leave to apply for order of certiorari, prohibition and injunction.
There is no known law in Nigeria that gives or gave the 1st respondent jurisdiction to try person or persons or the Applicants for an alleged offence that took place in another state of the federation. There is no where in the administration of justice law of Nasarawa state 2018 or any other statute in Nasarawa State, including the Area Court Law, that empowers the 1st respondent to exercise jurisdiction and try person or persons or the applicants over offences that allegedly took place in far-away Anambra State and Delta State.
No court, including the 1st respondent’s court, has jurisdiction over a matter, service or services were not effected on the parties.
Circulating court processes on social media by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to taint the hard earned reputations of the 2nd Applicant cannot qualify as service of court process.
That instances where the services of court process are to be made outside jurisdiction, the summons of same shall be sent in duplicate to court in whose jurisdiction the person resides or works.
The High Court adjourned the the case to 10th day of September,2024 for hearing of the motion on notice.
