IN RE: KEYSTONE BANK LTD. & ANOR. vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2022)LCN/16855
(CA)
PRINCIPLE:
“Now, it is settled law that Preliminary Objections, where raised by a Party, should initially be determined before resolving the substantive appeal or the Application, in the event that the Preliminary Objection was successful. The essence of a Preliminary Objection is to terminate in limine an appeal or Application. When raised by a Respondent, the Court is duty bound to hear and determine the issues before hearing the appeal or the Application. This is so because the Court would have saved the energy it would have dissipated over the hearing of an incompetent appeal or Application, if it were indeed incompetent. See GALADIMA VS. STATE (2017) LPELR-41911 (SC); LASE VS. STATE (2017) LPELR-42468 (SC); YARO VS. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD. (2007) 17 NWLR (PART 1063) 333; AGBAREH VS. MIMRA (2008) 2 NWLR (PART 1071) 378.
Therefore, this Court will first consider the Preliminary Objection in order to ascertain whether it is weighty enough to dispose of this Application in limine. Reliance is placed on OKOROCHA VS. UBA PLC (2018) LPELR-45122 (SC); ONYEMEH VS. EGBUCHULAM (1996) 5 NWLR (PART 448) 255; EFET VS. INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (PART 1247) 423 AT 438
It is pertinent to note that the Applicant submitted in his Reply that the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit and Written Address are irregular and as such be discountenanced as four other Parties were added and the Applicant did not have any grievance against them.
It is settled law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of Parties and the Court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the Parties actually before it. See the Case Authorities of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC 1; BELLO VS. INEC & ORS. (2010) LPELR-767 (SC).
In the instant appeal, the misjoinder of the four parties is not fatal to the determination of the Issue before this Court in this Application. Thus, it is a curable irregularity, which does not affect the whole process. Reliance is placed on CROSS RIVER STATE NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION VS. ONI & ORS. (1995) LPELR-898 (SC); AYANKOYA & ORS. VS. OLUKOYA & ANOR. (1996) LPELR-669 (SC); OLADEINDE & ANOR. VS. I.O ODUWOLE (1962) WNLR 41.
It is settled that the Courts are duty bound not to delve into substantive matters at interlocutory stage. The question is: What is Interlocutory?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, the word, “interlocutory”‘ means interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy.
Since the interlocutory Applications are usually dealt with before the substantive suit, the law is that a Court should not say anything at that stage of the proceedings that would jeopardize the just and proper determination of the suit after the trial. Simply put, the Court must not determine substantive issues at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings. See AGWU & ORS. VS. JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC (2019) LPELR-47625 (SC); MORTUNE VS. GAMBO (1979) LPELR-1913 (SC).
In this case, the Ground One of the Appellant/Applicant’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed 18th March 2020 in this Court is that:
‘’The trial Court erred in law and came to a perverse decision when it found Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd. guilty of Counts 1, 10, and 13 of the Further Amended Information and thereby convicted Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd. on the Counts notwithstanding that Bank PHB/Keystone Bank was not a decipherable legal entity.’’
While the first prayer of the Applicant in this Application is:
‘’AN ORDER granting Leave to the Applicant to change the name of the Appellant to read “Keystone Bank Ltd.’’ from “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd.” as used at the Trial Court.’’
A careful comparison of that Ground One of the Amended Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s first prayer in this Application will disclose that this Application and the main appeal have similar task of determining the proprietary or otherwise of prosecution of this case at the trial Court based on the way the Applicant is being described. Thus, determination of this Application will surely resolve the issue in the appeal.
The Apex Court has warned this Court in UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD. v. I.K. MARTINS (NIG) LTD. (2000) LPELR-3421 (SC) to desist from pronouncing on substantive matters or issues in the course of interlocutory proceedings when HIS LORDSHIP PER GODFREY OKAY ACHIKE, JSC, posited thus: “This Court has counselled for caution, times without number, that trial Courts, as well as intermediate Appellate Courts, should desist from making positive pronouncements touching on the substantive issue while they are only engaged in determination of interlocutory matters before them. Surely, this practice is unacceptable because it prejudges the real matter in controversy even before arguments by learned Counsel have been marshalled on the substantive issue. Ordinarily, where the trial Judge has in fact delved into and determined the substantive issue when considering an interlocutory matter, it is clear that even if he has rightly determined the interlocutory matter before him, he cannot dispassionately revisit the substantive issue and be expected to take an opposite view from his original stand on the matter. Indeed, whether the trial Judge remains constant in his view on the substantive decision he had earlier taken or not, it would make no difference to the dilemma arising from his procedural error. This is because if the trial Judge is allowed to revisit the substantive issue at any stage of the trial it will no doubt seemingly amount to the Judge sitting on appeal on his earlier decision on the substantive matter. This will surely outrage the sense of justice of an independent observer. In such a situation an appellate intermediate Court will have no option than to order a re-trial before another Judge of the same jurisdiction.”
Based on the foregoing analysis, supported with judicial authorities, the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent against this Application is valid.
This Application is hereby declared incompetent and as such is accordingly dismissed.” Per BANJOKO, JCA.