Claims

The law is trite that for a defendant to get title, he must prove it where the action of a plaintiff seeking declaration of title is dismissed. Such dismissal in the absence of a successful counter-claim by the defendant, does not amount to a declaration of any right to the defendant. Therefore, where a plaintiff claims title to land and the Court dismisses his claim for failing to prove title, the defendant who has not counter-claimed for declaration of title to the same land, does not automatically become entitled to the land. See Anwoyi v Shodeke (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 916) 34 SC; Ikem v. Efame (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 709) 321

The issue is whether suit No. FHC/PH/CS/524/2016 amounts to an abuse of process of the Court since at the time it was filed suits Nos. FHC/L/CS/637/2016, FHC/L/CS/613/2016 and FCT/HC/CV/1443/2016 were pending or proceedings had commenced.
The Rule is that where matters involving the same parties and the same claims are raised contemporaneously in two or more Courts, it is desirable and clearly in the interest of justice that these matters should be heard in only one of these Courts. It is designed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on the same issues.

It is trite and well settled as rightly argued by the said counsel that:-
"the person claiming should establish his entitlement to that type of damages by credible evidence of such a character as would suggest that he indeed is entitled to an award under that head...
See the cases of Oladehin v. Continental Textile Mills Ltd (1978) NSCC, page 88 and also Imana v. Robinson (1979) NSCC page 1.

It is equally trite that the onus is on the claimant to establish his title upon a preponderance of evidence or on the balance of probability. He must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, except where the defendant's case supports his case. See: Kodilinye Vs Odu 2 WACA 336 @ 337; Onwugbufor vs Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) 252; Shittu vs. Fashawe (2005) 7 SC (Pt. II) 107; Nruamah & Ors vs. Ebuzoeme & Ors. (2013) 1 SC 31 @ 55 56.

Both the appellants and the respondents as plaintiffs and defendants respectively, by virtue of their claim and counter-claim at the trial Court, asserted entitlement to the declaration of the Court as being the rightful owners of the land in dispute. The declaratory reliefs they sought are never granted as a matter of course. The reliefs are obtained on the basis of very strong and cogent case contained in the claimants pleadings and evidence led in support. It is for the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that under all the circumstances of the case he is fully entitled to the discretionary reliefs he urges in his favour. The claimant succeeds on the strength of his case alone and never by virtue of the weakness of the defendants' case. See Egbunike & Anor v. Muonweoku (1961) NSCC 40,Antra Industry Nigeria Ltd v. Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industries (1983) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 381 and Senator Iyiola Omisore & Anor v. Ogheni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola & Ors (2015) LPELR-2480 (SC).

The next thing I wish to determine is the nature of the claim of the appellant before the trial Court. This is so because it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. See Adetayo & Ors v Ademola & Ors (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 1215) 169, Abia State Transport Corporation & Ors v Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 9 NWLR (pt 1145) P.1., Dr. Salik v Idris & ors (2014) 15 NWLR (pt 1429) 36.

The lower Court, the appellant must accept, lacks the jurisdiction of granting the 6th relief that was no longer being sought by the appellant. It is trite that the Court is without power to award a claimant that which he did not claim. Though the Court may award less, it lacks the vires to award more than what is claimed or pleaded by either party to the controversy before it. As the saying goes, a Court of law not being a charitable institution, it's duty in civil matters is limited to the grant of a proven claim only. See Etom Ekpenyong & 3 ors V. Inyang Effiong Nyang & 6 ors (1975) 2 SC 65 at 73 74, Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt 990) 65 and Awodi & anor V. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt 1447) 578.

Though acknowledged that possession on the one hand and damages for trespass and injunction in one suit are mutually exclusive, a claim for injunction and possession in one suit would not be defeated because the claims are lumped together. See Rufai v. Igbirra Native Authority (1957) NRNLR 178, Ibeziako v. Nwaobogu (1972) 1 All NLR (pt. 2) 200; Ezekwesili v. Onwuagbu (1998) 2 NWLR (pt. 541) 217 at 224.

It is pertinent and also elementary to state that a subject matter of a claim before a court is determined on the plaintiff's claim per the pleadings filed. The respondent's claim on the one hand is in respect of a piece or parcel of land at Amikwo village, Awka. On the other hand however the appellants as defendants counter claimed in respect of the same piece or parcel of land subject matter of this suit. The pleadings of the parties are very relevant as points of reference.

The Court is under a duty not to give over and above what a party has claimed. Whilst a Court may have jurisdiction to make monetary award less than what a party claims, the Court lacks competence to award more than what is in the claim. See Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v. Southport Corporation (1956) AC 218; Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR Pg. 372; BIMT Ventures Ltd v. Linpark Nig. Ltd (2009) LPELR-8731 (CA); Bellview Airlines Ltd. v. Aluminium City (2007) LPELR- 8465 (CA). PER CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

The law is trite that in determining the radical issue of jurisdiction, the Court is bound to examine the claims of the Plaintiff as contained in the originating process igniting the jurisdiction of the Court. The record bears witness that the action culminating into the instant appeal was in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
A scrutiny of the deposition of facts contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons together with the reliefs sought would reveal that the action or event forming the fulcrum of the 1st Respondent’s complaint at trial happened wholly in Imo State. By the reliefs sought in the suit, the 1st Respondent challenged the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in monitoring the State, Ward and Local Government Congresses of the Appellant held in Imo State between 20th and 23rd July, 2018.
The 1st Respondent also challenged the powers of the Appellant to validly conduct State, Ward and Local Government Congresses of the Appellant held in Imo State of Nigeria between 20th and 23rd July, 2018 without 21 days’ notice given to INEC in line with the provision of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

The law makes a distinction between jurisdiction over “principal claims” and “ancillary claims”. It says that if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the “principal claims”, then it will have no jurisdiction to entertain the “ancillary claims” – see PDP V. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, Kakih V. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (1430) 374, Egbuonu V. B.R.T.C. (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29, and Tukur V.
Govt., of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517, wherein Obaseki, JSC, explained: If there is a Court with jurisdiction to determine all the Issues raised in a matter, including the principal issue, it is improper to approach a Court that is competent to determine only some of the issues. The incompetence of the Court to entertain and determine the principal question is enough to nullify the whole proceedings and Judgment, as there is no room for half Judgment in any matter brought before the Court.
Very apt; there is no room for half Judgment in any matter brought before a Court or Tribunal, as in this case, where the principal claims are directed against SEC and CBN, Federal Government Agencies. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

Indeed, the law has been firmly laid down that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over the principal claims in a case, it has the duty to decline the exercise of partial jurisdiction over subsidiary claims and transfer the case to the appropriate and proper Court with full jurisdiction over the principal claims. See Odunsi v. Ojora (1961) All NLR, 283, Nwafia v. Ububa (1966) NWLR 219, Tukur v. Govt. MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.: