Today’s article seeks to examine the effects of a judgment given against a deceased person or when one of the parties has lost its legal personality, relying on the case of Mainstreet Bank Registrars Limited v Elder David Alabi Ogundimu (2023) 14 NWLR (PT. 1905) 574-575.
The principle of law is that a deceased person has no legal personality and capacity and, therefore, cannot maintain an action in a trial or appeal. Every action or appeal requires the proper parties to prosecute it. However, when an appeal has been properly entered, the appeal still subsists upon the death of the appellant and only requires the substitution of a living party to prosecute it. See Iroeche v. Izuogu (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1714) 211. The possibility of getting the reliefs sought depends whether the matter is a personal matter or not.
Thus, where one of the parties has lost their legal personality due to death and was not substituted before the judgment was delivered, the decision will be a nullity, as the court has lost the requisite authority to determine the rights of a deceased person. See Re: Otuedon (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 392) 655 at 667. Therefore, a judgment delivered in favor of or against a deceased person who has not been substituted constitutes a nullity.
In Mainstreet Bank Registrars Limited v Elder David Alabi Ogundimu (2023) 14 NWLR (PT. 1905) 574-575, Kehinde Abimbola, the original respondent, brought a case against the appellant, alleging wrongful termination of employment. The National Industrial Court ruled in favor of Kehinde Abimbola. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant appealed the case in Appeal No. CA/L/815/2015. The appeal was argued on October 5, 2017, and the judgment was issued on November 24, 2017.
Tragically, Kehinde Abimbola had passed away on October 25, 2017, just 30 days before the judgment. Unfortunately, neither party’s counsel had informed the court of this fact when the judgment was issued.
On December 13, 2017, which was 19 days after the judgment was delivered, the appellant filed an application with the Court of Appeal, requesting the judgment to be set aside. The basis for this request was that the judgment was invalid since it was delivered after the respondent’s demise, a fact the appellant became aware of only after the judgment had been made.
The father of the late respondent opposed the appellant’s application, citing a violation of Order 6, Rule 12 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, because the application was filed more than 14 days after the Rules allowed.
In determining this suit, it was held that a court must have jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties involved in a case. Parties can be natural individuals or legal entities created by statute or registration. However, a court cannot have jurisdiction over a deceased individual, regardless of the court’s awareness, once the fact of death is established or admitted. In this case, when Mrs. Kehinde Abimbola passed away on 25/10/2017, the court lost its authority to issue any orders related to her.
The nature and effect of a null judgment are that it is a judgment treated as if it was never given or made because it has no legal consequence whatsoever, and a person affected by such a judgment is entitled, ex debito justitiae (in the interest of justice), to apply to have it set aside. This is because the judgment cannot confer any right on anyone nor impose any obligation on anybody due to its lack of legal validity. In this case, the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal to set aside its judgment because it is a nullity, and the court granted the application.
On the question of the timing of the appeal, the court held that by virtue of Order 15, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal rules 2021, every counsel must promptly report a party’s death to the registrar of the Court and parties and adhere to the 14-day limit for filing applications to set aside judgments according to Order 6 Rule 10. However, the court opined that there are instances where it won’t be bound by these rules, particularly in the interest of justice, which it exercised in this specific case. Therefore, the respondent’s argument on time elapsed was not considered.
AFFEN JCA held that: a judgment classified as a nullity is one that is destitute of legal force or effect; one which is treated as if it was never made or given. See West African Automobile & Eng. Co. Ltd. v. Ajanaku (1972) U.I.L.R. 335 and Busari & Ors. v. Oseni (2018) LPELR-46635(CA). Thus, even though rules of court are meant to be obeyed, where an application to set aside a judgment that is a nullity is brought outside the period stipulated in the Rules of Court without any prayer seeking an extension of time, this court cannot ignore the fact of nullity of its judgment and will, in an appropriate case, depart from its rules in order to accommodate the application in the interest of justice, as provided in Order 25, Rules 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.
In conclusion, a fundamental legal principle is that a court’s jurisdiction extends to both the subject matter and the parties involved. A court lacks jurisdiction over a deceased individual who hasn’t been properly substituted in the legal proceedings, and any judgment rendered in such a situation would be considered void.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 