In PETROJESSICA ENTERPRISES LTD V LEVENTIS TECHNICAL CO. LTD (1993) 5 NWLR (PT 244) page 675 at 693. It was held “… the importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a case be it at trial on appeal to the Court of Appeal as the court can suo motu raise it.”

In TALAL AHMED RODA V. FRN unreported Suit No. 418/2015 delivered on 30th January, 2015. Dathijo Muhammed JSC stated: “ Jurisdiction is the pillar upon which the entire case before a court rests. Jurisdiction is to a court what a gate is to a premises or a door in a home. It remains the nerve centre of adjudication and the blood that gives life to the jurisdiction of an action in a court of law. Jurisdiction is so fundamental that it robs on the competence and constitute the basis in which a court or tribunal tries a case. it is the lifeline of all trials since any proceedings conducted without it is a nullity.” See DAPIANLONG & 5 ORS V. DARIYE (2005) 4 SCN 266; ALHAJI SAKA OPABIYI V. LAYIWOLA MUNIRU (2011) 12 SC (PT 111) 83, STATE V. DR. OLU ONAGORUWA (1991.93) AL NLR 579; OLUSEGUN OGUNJOBI V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) 12 SC (PT IV) 148.

Being creations of the Constitution and other enabling statutes. Courts draw their powers and jurisdiction of adjudication for those legislation.”

An action which is not brought within the prescribed period offered by the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. In this case the action is statute barred. Having decided this issue which is the life wire of the jurisdiction of the court, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain same. I resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

On lack of locus standi another area of jurisdictional issue raised, learned counsel to the Appellant argued that Respondents were unknown as at 1972 and 1975 when the land was acquired vide Notice No 389, dated 19/2/72 contained in Gazette No. 12, Vol. 59 of 9th March 1972 and Corringendum respectively and that they had no interest whatsoever in the land. At page 703, paragraph 9 of the records, the Respondents contended that they were not served with the Notice of acquisition, this is contrary to the Appellant’s argument, Respondents contented relying on NNB LTD V OVIASE (1993) 8 the competence and constitute the basis in which a court or tribunal tires a case. it is the lifeline of all trials since any proceedings conducted without it is a nullity.” See DAPIANLONG & 5 ORS V. DARIYE (2005) 4 SCN 266; ALHAJI SAKA OPABIYI V. LAYIWOLA MUNIRU (2011) 12 SC (PT 111) 83, STATE V. DR. OLU ONAGORUWA (1991.93) AL NLR 579; OLUSEGUN OGUNJOBI V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) 12 SC (PT IV) 148.

Being creations of the Constitution and other enabling statutes. Courts draw their powers and jurisdiction of adjudication for those legislation.”

An action which is not brought within the prescribed period offered by the provision of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action. In the case the action is statute barred. Having decided this issue which is the life wire of the jurisdiction of the court, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain same. I resolve this issue in favour of the Apellant.

On lack of locus standi another area of jurisdictional issue raised learned counsel to the Appellant argued that Respondents were unknown as at 1972 and 1975 when the land was acquired vide Notice No. 389, dated 19/3/72 contained in Gazette No. 12 Vol. 59 of 9th March 1972 and Corrigendum respectively and that they had no interest whatsoever in the land. At page 703, paragraph 9 of the records, the Respondents contented that they were not served with the Notice of Acquisition this is contrary to the Appellant’s argument. Respondents contented relying on N.N.B. LTD. V. OVIASE (1993), 8 which states that any party whose legal right has been infringed is entitled to bring an action.

The 1st Respondent showed his title through the Abulu family in 1977, in his relief he is seeking for (i) a declaration that there was no acquisition of the land in dispute by any Government (ii) a declaration of title to the same land (iii) damages and (iv) injunction thereon.

The title of the 1st Respondent is of no matter or legal effect. The Respondent ought to have instituted the action against his predecessor-in-title for non-dislosure and not the Federal Airport Authority who the Federal Government acquired the land for 2 years before the transaction for sale between Respondent and Abulu family. The Plaintiff/Respondent had no locus standi to maintain an action against the NAA. The person who could maintain an action against NAA is Abulu family, the predecessors-in-title of the Respondent. The Respondent’s action is not justifiable as it is statute barred.

Indeed the 1st Respondent was not diligent in his search before concluding the sale for the land. The respondent also failed to join/sue the Federal Government who actually acquired/gazette the acquisition and transferred to the Minister responsible for Civil Aviation who subsequently in 1976, pursuant to section 1(2) of the Nigerian Airport Authority Decree No. 45 of 1976 transferred the said land to the Appellants. See paragraph 9 of Statement of Defence dated 30/1/99.

There is no dispute between the Nigerian Airport Authority who inherited the land in 1975 and 1st Respondent who bought the land in 1977. Locus standi is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal.

Per Adekeye JSC in Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra) held: “The term entails the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever.

On the tests for determination of the locus standi of a person
(a) Action must be justifiable
(b) There must be a dispute between the parties”
See INAKOJU V ADELEKE (2001) 4 NWLR (PT.1025) 4 AKINBULU V. AKINNNUBU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 486) 144, OWODUN V REG. TRUSTEES OF CCC (2000) 6 S.C (PT.111) 60. See Adeke; JSC.

In this suit, none of the test has been passed by the Respondents. The issue of locus standi is a condition precedent to be determined in the case and a lack of it renders the suit incompetent and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear it, the only order the court can make in the circumstance is that of dismissal.

On the whole, the lower court fell into grave error in entering judgement for the Respondents. I resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant. I shall not bother myself with the other four issues which will be a mere academic exercise having found that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the action ab initio. This has effectively nullified the proceedings before the lower court.

This Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on 8th March 1996 is hereby set aside and the action ID/502/1322-1340/88 is hereby dismissed. Cost of N50,000 is awarded against the Respondents.