PERSONS, NAMES UNKNOWN V. SAHRIS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (2019)

Background

This appeal concerned the competence of proceedings brought and maintained by persons who deliberately remained anonymous. Sahris International Limited claimed a right of occupancy over a plot of land in the Asokoro District of Abuja, covered by a certificate of occupancy. The respondent alleged that unidentified squatters had entered the land and erected or operated business premises thereon. It therefore commenced proceedings at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, against the occupants as “Persons, Names Unknown,” seeking recovery of possession.

Before the action was commenced, the respondent’s solicitor issued a quit notice addressed to the manager of Kesthern Hill Top Restaurant. When the occupants became aware of the proceedings, counsel filed a memorandum of conditional appearance on their behalf, but neither the occupants’ names, legal identity nor their interest in the land was disclosed. Counsel sought an adjournment to challenge the competence of the proceedings. The trial court instead entered summary judgment and ordered the occupants to give up possession.

The anonymous occupants appealed to the Court of Appeal in the same description, “Persons, Names Unknown.” The respondent challenged the competence of that appeal, arguing that an unidentified person could not appeal as of right. The Court of Appeal considered the objection, allowed counsel for the appellants an opportunity to address it, and dismissed or struck out the appeal on the ground that the appellants had not identified themselves, demonstrated an interest in the matter, or obtained leave to appeal as interested persons.

The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued, among other things, that the Court of Appeal had improperly entertained the jurisdictional objection because it was raised as an issue in the respondent’s brief, that the court had denied them fair hearing, that the respondent was estopped from challenging their identity after obtaining judgment against “Persons, Names Unknown,” and that the appeal ought to have been determined on its merits.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to entertain the respondent’s challenge to the competence and jurisdiction of the appeal.
2. Whether the appellants were afforded a fair hearing before the Court of Appeal determined the jurisdictional objection.
3. Whether an anonymous person sued as “Persons, Names Unknown” could appeal without first disclosing his identity, establishing an interest in the proceedings and obtaining leave to appeal.
4. Whether issues for determination could properly be formulated from several grounds of appeal, including incompetent grounds, and whether the appeal should be decided on the issues rather than the grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction and competence must be determined first whenever properly raised, before the court considers the merits. An objection to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, including before the Supreme Court, and there is no rigid prescribed format for raising such an objection. A court also has an inherent duty to satisfy itself that the proceedings before it are competent.

The Court further held that disclosure of the proper parties to a suit or appeal is fundamental. A faceless or unidentified person cannot maintain an action or appeal indefinitely without identifying himself, stating the interest claimed, and complying with any requirement to obtain leave. Under sections 241, 242 and 243 of the Constitution, a person who was not formally a party to the trial proceedings but claims an interest in the matter must obtain leave to appeal. The anonymous appellants had not fulfilled that condition.

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent was estopped from questioning the appellants’ identity merely because the original possession proceedings were brought against persons unknown. The description was a procedural device used because the occupants were unknown to the landowner; it did not give an unidentified squatter legal personality or confer an unrestricted right of appeal. The proper course for the occupants was to disclose themselves and seek to be joined or recognised as interested parties.

On appellate practice, the Court reaffirmed that an appeal is argued and determined on the issues formulated for determination, not directly on the grounds of appeal after the issues have been distilled. An issue may arise from more than one ground, but an issue founded on an incompetent ground is itself incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the appellants had remained anonymous throughout the proceedings, despite having the opportunity to reveal their identity when their counsel entered conditional appearance and participated in the case. They did not identify any individual, company or other legal person as the actual appellant, did not establish a recognisable interest in the property, and did not obtain leave to appeal as interested persons.

The Court also held that the Court of Appeal had not breached the appellants’ right to fair hearing. The objection had been raised by the respondent, and the Court of Appeal drew the appellants’ counsel’s attention to it and permitted him to address the court orally. The appellants could also have filed a reply brief but failed to do so. Since the competence of the appeal was a jurisdictional issue apparent on the record, the Court of Appeal was entitled to determine it before considering the substantive arguments.

Authorities including Amadume v. Abok, Ogunbiyi v. Mustapha, Olowosoke v. Oke, Nalsa Team Associates v. NNPC, Bowaje v. Adedewora, Sanusi v. Ayoola and McPhail v. Persons Unknown supported the conclusions reached.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in substance and struck it out as incompetent. The Court held that the anonymous appellants lacked the capacity and locus standi to maintain the appeal because they had neither disclosed their identity and interest nor obtained the necessary leave. No order as to costs was made in the lead judgment.

Significance

The decision emphasises that access to appellate jurisdiction depends on the existence of a legally identifiable party with a demonstrable interest in the dispute. Although court rules may permit possession proceedings against unknown squatters, that procedural convenience does not authorise the occupants to remain permanently anonymous when seeking to challenge the judgment. The case also confirms the priority accorded to jurisdictional questions and the limited circumstances in which a court may determine a jurisdictional issue without first requiring extensive argument on the merits.