SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
"Federal offence" is defined in subsection (3) thereof to mean "an offence contrary to the provisions of an act of the National Assembly or any law having effect as if so enacted." Per UWAIS, C.J.N. (P. 58, para. D-E) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ONDO STATE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS(2002) LPELR-623(SC)
'..an objection ordinarily is that (act) which is said or felt in opposition or disagreement; the reason or cause for disagreeing, or disputing. It is an adverse reason or argument. It is a way of saying that one does not like or agree with what the other wants to do, or has indeed started doing it or has even done it.
''Anything "Preliminary", denotes anything coming and usually leading up to the main part of that thing or something else. Thus, a Preliminary Objection in a case/suit before a court of law or tribunal is that objection which if upheld would render further proceedings before that court or tribunal impossible or unnecessary. An example which readily comes to mind is an objection to the court's or tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain a matter placed or raised before it by any of the parties.
'It is the practice in all the courts of law that an applicant who fails to furnish the court with all necessary and vital document(s) for the due consideration of his application does so at his own peril as his application may likely be refused and he cannot be heard to complain. See: NNSC Ltd v. Alhaji Hammajoda Sabana Co. Ltd. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.74) 33; Ogunsola v NICON (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.123) 492.'' Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 36-37, paras. F-A) ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS v. IN RE: CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE & ORS(2014) LPELR-24036(SC)
''The trite law is that where there is an objection against consideration/continuation of a process that objection should be determined first. See: Ogoja v. Offoboche (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt.458) 48; Katto v. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt.214) 126; ANPP v R.O.A.S.S.D. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.920) 140.'' Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 15, paras. A-B) ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS v. IN RE: CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE & ORS(2014) LPELR-24036(SC)
'The crucial nature of the issue of jurisdiction in the adjudication process explains the resort to this procedure. A resort to an otherwise procedure amounts to waste of the time of the court and the parties should the Court lack the jurisdiction to proceed and determine the appeal on the basis of which the applicant's motion has been brought. Courts do not indulge in vain acts. In AG Lagos State v. AG of the Federation, (2014) 3 NWLR (pt. 1412) 217, this Court at page 249 of the report restated the principle thus:- "Courts, including the apex court, lack the jurisdiction of entertaining incompetent claims and/or those that constitute abuse of their processes.
''The fundamental question still remains: Is CPC (the appellant on record), dead or alive, as at the time of filing its appeal to this court? Although the death of a political party cannot be similar to that of a natural human person, yet its death resembles, though with dissimilarities, the death of juristic/corporate entity. For instance, a company is said to have died finally and beyond resurrection when it is completely wound-up. Mere withdrawal, cancellation or recall of its certificate of registration does not bring its corporate existence to an end. See: Opebiyi v. Oshoboja (1976) 9 & 10 SC.198; Nzom v. Jinadu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.5) 533; Abethe v. NDIC (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.406) 228 at 240 C -D;
'The position of the law on the status of a dead person has been severally stated by this court and other courts. I will only cite few instances: 1. in the case of SGB Ltd. V Braimoh (1991) 1 NWLR (pt.108) 428 at p.434 - D-G, it was held that: "It is settled law that a dead person ceases to exist in the eyes of the law and any cause or action pending against such a person automatically abates unless it is one that survives the person."