Justice Olabisi A. Akinlade of the Osborne, Ikoyi, division of Lagos High Court, has dismissed N1 billion defamation suit filed by Nollywood actress, Iyabo Ojo against Lizzy Anjorin.
Apart from dismissing the suit, Justice Akinlade also ordered Iyabo Ojo’s lawyer, Dr. Olabimpe Ajegbomogun, to pay the sum of N500, 000, to Barrister Ademola Olabiyi, lawyer to Lizzy Anjorin.
Iyabo ojo in the suit marked LD/ADR/5292/2023, had asked the for several reliefs which included the N1 billion as damages against Anjorin.
In urging the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost, Anjorin through her lawyer, Ademola Olabiyi, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, wherein he argued that the suit failed to comply with Pre-action procedures, as Protocol Form 01 accompanying the Writ of Summons was not signed by the counsel to the claimant.
Specifically, Anjorin listed several grounds for the dismissal of the suit,
Some of the grounds listed for the dismissal of the suit include: “the Writ of Summons does not, follow the exact format prescribed by the Rules of the Court outlined in Form 1 for commencing this suit, thereby invalidating the writ, nullifying the action, and rendering it defective.
“The Claimant failed to endorse the nature of the claim, and the relief sought in the Writ of Summons dated 15th of January 2024 thus resulting in improper endorsement of the Writ.
“The Statement of Compliance with Pre-action Protocol Form 01 dated 14th of December 2023 accompanying the Writ of Summons dated 15th of January 2024 was not signed by the counsel to the Claimant, thereby invalidating it.
“The failure of the counsel to sign the Statement of Compliance with Pre-action Protocol Form 01, which is attached to the Writ of Summons dated 15th of January 2024 renders the document invalid, consequently nullifying the action.
“The failure of the claimant’s Counsel to sign the Statement of Compliance with Pre-action Protocol Form 01 results in the document not accompanying the Writ of Summons dated 15th of January 2024, thereby nullifying the action for noncompliance with Order 5 (2) of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules 2019. And that search conducted from the Court file on the 2nd day of April 2024 and the Certify True Copy of the process applied for revealed that even the Court copy was not signed nor dated.
“Order 5 (3) of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules 2019 stipulates that failure to comply with Order 5 (2) of the same rules, which requires the accompanying of various documents with the Writ of Summons, such as a Statement of Claim, List of Witnesses, Written Statements on Oath, copies of relevant documents, and Pre-Action Protocol Form 01, shall nullify the action.
“In the circumstance, this Honourable Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon this action. And the action ought to be struck out or dismissed accordingly.”
In response to the preliminary objection, Iyabo through her counsel filed 14 paragraphs counter-affidavit sworn to by one Maryam Hassan and a written address dated June 1, 2024.
In the counter-affidavit to the preliminary objection, the deponent stated that the Writ of Summons does not need to follow the exact format prescribed by the Rules of the Court outlined in Form 01 for commencing this suit, that could thereby invalidate the Writ, nullify the action, and render it defective.
The claimant/respondent also denied some of the aveerments in affidavit in support of the preliminary objection, while stated that the action under consideration was instituted in line with the due process of law as provided in the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
She also stated that the Points of Law raised by the Anjorin’s counsel, Ademola, does not touch on the substance of the case to affect the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. adding that the Writ of Summons follows the exact format prescribed by the Rules of the Court outlined in Form 01 for commencing this suit, thereby validating the Writ, sustaining the action and making it effective.
She further stated that the nature of claim and the reliefs sought in the Writ of Summons dated January 15, 2024 were properly endorsed and can also be amended at any time before trial commences which does not invalidate the Writ and that the Statement of compliance with Pre-Action Protocol in Form 01 dated December 14, 2023 accompanying the Writ of Summons dated January 15, 2024 was duly signed by the Dr. Olabimpe F. Ajegbomogun, hereby validating it.
She therefore urged the Court in the interest of justice not to grant the Anjorin’s application.
During the trial of the suit, Lizzy Anjorin’s lawyer, Barrister Ademola informed the court that upon applied to search the court’s file in respect of the claimant/respondent’s originating processes, it was discovered that the Court’s copy of the claimant/respondent’s Writ of Summons was not signed by the claimant/respondent’s counsel and that her counsel immediately applied and obtained a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said Originating Processes in the Court’s file, which clearly revealed that the Originating processes, particularly the Writ was not signed as at April 2, 2024, being the date of certification by the Commissioner for Oaths.
Ademola further informed that the exhibit of the original processes which the claimant/respondent attached to their counter affidavit is a mere photocopy of the Originating processes in the Court’s file without certification by the Court. Adding that it was equally discovered during the search into the Court’s file, that the claimant/respondent did not apply to the Court for the CTC of the Originating processes before obtaining mere photocopy which was attached to her counter-affidavit, thereby raising a reasonable suspicion on how the claimant/respondent accessed the Court’s file and made photocopies of the Originating processes, that presently show that the Originating processes which were formerly unsigned have now been signed without an application to the Court.
Counsel to Anjorin stated that failure to properly sign the Court’s copy of the Originating Processes, fundamentally affects the validity of the processes and denies the court the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
On the validity of the writ of summon, Justice Akinlade ruled that: “…… having carefully studied all the processes in the application under consideration, the Honourable Court observed that counsel to the Applicant tendered a CTC of the Writ of Summons issued in this suit, which was found to be unsigned. Interestingly, the Writ currently in the Court’s file now has been signed notwithstanding the fact that when the case file was newly assigned to this Honourable Court, the Court also observed that the Writ was unsigned…..
“……. the evidence of the Commissioner for Oath further strengthens the position of this Honourable Court to the effect that when the case file was freshly assigned to this Court, it was observed that the Writ of Summons was unsigned by the Claimant’s counsel.
“Having resolved that the Writ of Summons was not signed by counsel to the claimant/respondent when she filed this suit, what the Court must resolve at this stage is what is the importance of a Writ of Summons and what is the effect of an unsigned Writ of Summon.
Delivering judgment on the substantive suit, Justice Akinlade after legally scrutinizing all the evidence adduced by the parties, exhibits tendered and the testimony of the court’s Commissioner of Oath.
The judge held that “In view of the foregoing and for the fact that the Writ of Summons which ignited this suit is invalid, I hereby adjudged that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit and I so hold.
“In awarding cost which follows event in this suit, the Court will not visit the sin of counsel on the Claimant. Consequently, N500, 000: 00 is awarded in favour of the Defendant and this must be paid by the Claimant’s counsel.
“In the final analysis, I hereby adjudged that this suit is incompetent, and it is hereby dismissed.”
