Background
On 2024-06-07, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered judgment in SC/CV/1584/2022, reversing a dispute between the Energy Commission of Nigeria (appellant) and two contractors (respondents): PSC Industries Limited and OGB-Tech Nigeria Limited. The respondents had been separately awarded four contracts by the appellant (two each) for various projects. Upon completion, the appellant failed to pay sums totaling over ₦91 million. The respondents filed suit in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory seeking payment and damages for breach of contract. The appellant’s defence raised two preliminary points: (1) misjoinder of causes of action, and (2) failure to refer payment disputes to arbitration as contractually agreed. Neither ground was formally moved before the trial court. Instead, the trial court dismissed a later objection on the validity of an amended writ and, on the merits, awarded the sums due with interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the suit was incompetent for misjoinder and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit in which distinct causes of action by two plaintiffs were joined.
- Whether procedural irregularities (misjoinder and arbitration clause) can be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court without prior leave.
- The attitude of courts to technical rules when substantial justice is not threatened.
Ratio Decidendi
- Misjoinder of causes of action is a matter of procedural jurisdiction, not substantive jurisdiction, and may be waived if not promptly raised (Mobil Producing v. LASEPA (2002); Adeyemo v. AG Kwara State (2017)).
- Procedural irregularities must be objected to at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so constitutes waiver (Odu’a Inv. Co. v. Talabi (1997); Ndayako v. Dantoro (2004)).
- Court rules of procedure are aids to justice and should not defeat substantive rights; technical non-compliance does not void proceedings unless a miscarriage of justice is shown (Zebra Energy v. FG (2002); Umaru v. Pamotei (2002)).
- A party requires leave of the Supreme Court to raise any issue on appeal that was not raised and determined below (Akpan v. Bob (2010)).
- The sanctity of contract doctrine (pacta sunt servanda) obliges parties to honour valid agreements absent fraud or mistake (AG Rivers State v. AG Akwa Ibom (2011)).
Court Findings
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous lead judgment by Abiru JSC, held that:
- The appellant’s complaint of misjoinder was procedural and thus subject to waiver; the appellant had participated fully in both lower courts without timely objection.
- No substantive jurisdictional defect was alleged; the court’s enabling statute and constitution conferred proper jurisdiction.
- The appellant never sought leave to introduce a fresh issue in the Supreme Court, rendering that complaint incompetent.
- Court rules serve justice and are not to be slavishly applied against substantial rights; no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.
- Plaintiffs may join multiple causes of action in one suit to avoid multiplicity and reduce costs, provided they can be conveniently determined together.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lacking merit, upheld the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeal, and awarded the respondents ₦500,000 as costs of the appeal.
Significance
This decision:
- Clarifies the distinction between procedural and substantive jurisdiction, emphasizing that substantive jurisdiction cannot be waived, whereas procedural issues can.
- Reinforces that procedural irregularities must be timely objected to or are deemed waived, preventing parties from ambushing courts with technical objections on appeal.
- Affirms the court’s preference for substantial justice over rigid technical compliance, ensuring that rules facilitate rather than obstruct fair outcomes.
- Underscores the defendant’s duty to honour valid contracts under the pacta sunt servanda maxim.