← Back to Insights

Introduction

The case of Nigerian Bottling Company Limited v. Essential Interiors Limited & Ors (Suit No. LD/5157CMW/2025) addresses a procedural dispute concerning the appropriate mode of commencing a civil action in the High Court of Lagos State. The claimant, Nigerian Bottling Company Limited, initiated the suit by originating motion, prompting the 3rd and 4th defendants (Realworth Properties Nigeria Limited and Victor Gwam Esq.) to file a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction on the grounds of improper commencement. The central issue was whether a suit commenced by originating motion, absent specific authorisation in the court's rules or statute, confers jurisdiction on the court. This summary examines the case background, arguments, legal issues, the court's analysis, ruling, and implications for civil procedure in Nigeria.

Background of the Case

Claimant's Position

Nigerian Bottling Company Limited commenced the suit by originating motion, seeking unspecified reliefs against four defendants: Essential Interiors Limited, Joseph Iriah Esq., Realworth Properties Limited, and Victor Gwam Esq. The claimant's counsel argued that the mode of commencement was permissible, relying on authorities related to originating summons, a distinct procedure. The claimant contended that the defendants' objection affidavit contained impermissible arguments and legal conclusions, urging the court to dismiss the objection.

Defendants' Preliminary Objection

The 3rd and 4th defendants (the applicants) objected to the suit's commencement, arguing that the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 do not permit filing suits by originating motion. They asserted that civil actions must be initiated by writ of summons or originating summons, as prescribed by Order 5 of the Rules, unless otherwise provided by statute. The applicants submitted that the improper commencement stripped the court of jurisdiction, rendering the suit incompetent. Their affidavit and written address supported this position, emphasising the foundational role of proper procedure.

Legal Issues for Determination

The court identified a single issue for determination:

  • Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a suit commenced by originating motion, given the provisions of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and relevant legal authorities.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Interpretation of the High Court Rules

The court, presided over by Hon. Justice K.A. Jose, examined Order 5 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, which governs the commencement of suits. Order 5 Rule 1 mandates that, subject to exceptions, all proceedings claiming relief for civil wrongs, damages for breach of duty, or declarations must commence by writ of summons. Order 5 Rule 4 permits originating summons for disputes involving the construction of deeds, wills, enactments, or other written instruments, or for declaring legal rights dependent on statutory interpretation. The court noted that no provision in the Rules authorizes commencement by originating motion.

Application of Legal Precedents

The court relied on several appellate decisions to underscore the importance of adhering to prescribed modes of action:

  • Oloyede v. Oloyede (2014) LPELR-24384(CA): The Court of Appeal held that actions must use the prescribed process, and deviation from statutory or regulatory provisions invalidates the suit.
  • Kasoap v. Kofa Trading Co. (1996) 2 SCNJ 325: Emphasized that claims must follow the procedure outlined in court rules or statutes.
  • Oyekan & Ors v. Aberuagba & Ors (1998): The Supreme Court, per Okoro, J.S.C., clarified that the four recognized modes of commencing actions—writ of summons, originating summons, originating motion, and petition—are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably unless authorized.
  • EFCC v. Clinton (2016) LPELR-45615(CA): Acknowledged that originating motions are used for specific applications (e.g., fundamental rights enforcement, judicial review), but only when provided for by law.

The court found that the claimant's reliance on authorities concerning originating summons was misplaced, as the suit was filed by originating motion, a mode not recognized under the Rules.

Jurisdictional Finding

The court concluded that the mode of filing a suit is the foundational basis for jurisdiction. Since the High Court Rules do not permit commencement by originating motion, and no statutory provision was cited to justify this mode, the suit was improperly commenced. Citing Oyekan v. Aberuagba, the court held that a failure to lay the proper procedural foundation deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Final Judgment

The court upheld the preliminary objection of the 3rd and 4th defendants, ruling as follows:

  • The suit was improperly commenced by originating motion, contrary to the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
  • The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit due to the improper mode of commencement.
  • The suit was struck out.
  • Costs of N50,000 were awarded against the claimant in favor of the 3rd and 4th defendants.

Legal and Procedural Implications

This ruling underscores critical lessons for legal practitioners and litigants in Nigeria:

  • Adherence to Court Rules: The mode of commencing a suit is not discretionary; it must strictly comply with the applicable court rules or statutory provisions. Deviations, even if unintentional, can result in jurisdictional challenges and dismissal.
  • Precision in Pleadings: Legal practitioners must ensure that the chosen mode of action aligns with the reliefs sought and is supported by the court's procedural framework. Missteps, such as conflating originating motion with originating summons, can be fatal.
  • Jurisdictional Foundations: Jurisdiction is contingent on proper procedure, reinforcing the principle that substantive claims cannot proceed without a valid procedural foundation.
  • Evidentiary Compliance: Affidavits supporting applications must avoid arguments or legal conclusions to remain admissible, though substantive legal arguments in written addresses can sustain a case.

For litigants, this case highlights the importance of engaging counsel with expertise in civil procedure to avoid costly procedural errors. Courts and rule-making bodies may consider clarifying or expanding permissible modes of commencement to address emerging legal needs.