ISOGUN & ORS V. AFOTAN & ORS (2018)

Background

This appeal arose from a leadership succession dispute within the Community Church of the Holy Apostles of Nigeria, Ori-Oke Iwamimo, Ondo State. The respondents commenced proceedings before the Federal High Court, Akure Judicial Division, seeking declarations that the second respondent remained the spiritual head and leader of the church. They alleged that he had been selected, installed and crowned by the late Oba Wilson Kudehinbu before the Oba’s death. They further challenged the alleged imposition of the third appellant as the new spiritual leader, contending that the appointment was illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to the accepted procedure of the church and void.

The respondents also sought orders setting aside the third appellant’s installation, compelling the appellants to recognise the second respondent, restraining the third appellant from presenting himself as spiritual leader, and directing the appellants to vacate certain quarters and houses. The appellants denied the claims and counterclaimed that the third appellant, as the son of the deceased Oba, was lawfully entitled to succeed him. They also maintained that he had been chosen at a general conference in accordance with the customs, norms and constitution of the church.

Before trial, the appellants challenged the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute did not fall within section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on that court in matters arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA). The objection was dismissed, the case proceeded to trial, and the respondents’ claims were substantially granted while the counterclaim was dismissed. The appellants appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claims concerning the appointment and recognition of the church’s spiritual leader.
2. Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence concerning the alleged appointment of the third appellant.
3. Whether the trial court was entitled to rely on Exhibit P2, an uncertified copy of the church constitution, after indicating that the exhibit was inadmissible or had been rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction is determined principally by examining the plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim. Under section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, a court whose jurisdiction is challenged has the power to examine the claims before it in order to determine whether it is competent to adjudicate. Because jurisdiction is fundamental, it must ordinarily be determined before the court embarks on the merits. Any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity, regardless of how carefully they may have been conducted.

The court distinguished between matters genuinely arising from the operation or regulation of companies under CAMA and disputes merely involving an incorporated body. Section 251(1)(e) gives the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over matters such as the formation, winding-up or dissolution of companies, shareholding, memoranda and articles of association, and the appointment or removal of directors or registered trustees where the issues require the application of CAMA or related legal principles. Registration under CAMA, by itself, does not automatically confer Federal High Court jurisdiction over every dispute involving the registered body.

In this case, the claims concerned an internal religious leadership tussle, the procedure for selecting a spiritual head, alleged violations of the church’s constitution, lack of fair hearing, accountability, control of worship activities and occupation of church-related premises. Those questions involved the day-to-day administration and internal affairs of the church. They did not require the court to determine the exercise of statutory powers of registered trustees under CAMA, nor did they concern the dissolution, winding-up or formal corporate operation of the sixth appellant.

Court Findings

The court resolved the jurisdictional issue in favour of the appellants. It concluded that the Federal High Court lacked the necessary vires to entertain the suit. Since jurisdiction was absent, it was unnecessary for the court to determine the evidential complaints concerning the alleged appointment of the third appellant or the use of Exhibit P2 as a basis for the trial judgment. The court nevertheless observed that issues of evidence and the propriety of relying on rejected documentary material could not validate proceedings commenced before a court lacking jurisdiction.

The court also held that where a matter has been wrongly commenced in the Federal High Court, section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act permits its transfer to a State High Court possessing competent jurisdiction. Exercising its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, the Court of Appeal ordered that the suit be transferred to the Chief Judge of Ondo State for assignment to a judge of the State High Court and trial de novo. No order was made as to costs.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The judgment and proceedings of the Federal High Court were declared null and void for want of jurisdiction. The dispute was transferred to the High Court of Ondo State, which was the proper forum to determine the parties’ competing claims concerning church leadership, internal governance and related civil rights.

Significance

The decision reinforces the jurisdictional boundary between the Federal High Court and State High Courts in Nigeria. It makes clear that the presence of a company, association or registered trustee as a party is not sufficient to invoke section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution. The substance of the claims, rather than the corporate status of a party, determines jurisdiction. The case is also significant for confirming that internal disputes involving the management or leadership of a religious association will generally fall within the general jurisdiction of a State High Court unless the dispute directly raises questions under CAMA or another statute regulating corporate operation.