Interpretation of Statutes

1. Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 15 of the Umuaka Development Union (UDU) Kano branch, the property known as No. 35 Abeokuta Road Sabon Gari, Kano, belonged solely to the Umuaka Development Union Kano Branch or the shareholders, which include Umuaka Development Union, Kano branch.
2. Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 15 of the constitution of Umuaka Development Union (UDU) Kano branch read alongside the entire provisions of the constitution of Umuaka Development union (UDU) Kano branch, the first Defendant can unilaterally suspend the shareholders meeting and dissolve the Board of Trustees of the property known as No. 35 Abeokuta Road, Sabon Gari, Kano.
3. Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 5 (2), 10 (8) or indeed any other provisions of the constitution of Umuaka Development union (UDU) Kano branch, the defendants possess the powers to determine the membership of the plaintiffs at all or in the manner same was carried out in this matter; and
4. Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Constitution of Umuaka Development Union (UDU) Kano branch, the term of office of the defendants will not come to an end in February, 2013 having commenced their current term in March, 2011.
Pursuant to the above questions sought to be determined by way of the originating summons, a number of declaratory reliefs and orders were sought from the lower Court. However, the Appellant herein filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the action before the lower Court on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and on the further ground that the applicants seeking to have the matter heard by originating summons, had no locus standi to institute the action. Consequent on the said Notice of Preliminary Objection which was filed on 8/4/13, the lower Court on 10/4/14 delivered a ruling, which ruling is the subject of the present appeal. In the said Ruling, the lower Court over-ruled all the grounds of objection in the preliminary objection. Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the Appellant on 24/4/14 filed a Notice of Appeal dated 23/4/14 challenging the Ruling on the following grounds: –
1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to consider the issue of the inappropriateness of commencing this suit No. K/101/13 by way of originating summons raised in the course of arguing the preliminary objection.
2. The learned trial Court erred in law when it held that the plaintiffs (shareholders) properly instituted this suit (K/101/13) in the State High Court instead of the Federal High Court
3. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that suit No. K/101/13 was properly filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity
4. The learned trial Court erred in law by holding that the first defendant/applicant/Appellant was served with the originating summons in the matter when the first defendant’s counter-affidavit controverting the affidavit of service of the originating summons was not challenged by the plaintiffs and oral evidence not called.”
The Appellant filed his Brief of Argument dated 26/9/15 on 28/9/5. The 1st Respondent filed a Notice of preliminary objection dated 18/11/15, on 19/11/15. The Argument on the Preliminary Objection is contained in the 1st Respondents Amended Brief of Argument filed on 27/1/16. The Appellant also filed a Reply Brief on 6/4/16. The said Reply Brief having been filed out of time, was deemed properly filed on 9/5/16. The Appellant’s Reply to the Preliminary Objection is contained in the Reply Brief.

…………………….B…………………….