Facts
The appeal involves a landlord-tenant relationship concerning a property described as a Block of Flats located at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State. The landlord (the “Respondent”) leased two of these flats to a tenant (the “Appellant”). In February 2004, the Appellant allegedly vacated the premises abruptly. This departure was carried out without the prior knowledge of, or formal notice to, the Respondent, his solicitor, or the property caretaker. Upon regaining possession and conducting an inspection, the Respondent discovered that the flats had been significantly degraded. To restore the property to a livable state, the Respondent undertook extensive and costly repairs and renovations. Following the completion of the repairs, the Respondent demanded a refund of the renovation costs and payment of outstanding rents. When these demands were not met, the Respondent initiated an action via a Writ of Summons at the High Court of Rivers State.
The Appellant responded by filing a Motion on Notice, raising a preliminary objection to the suit. The core of the objection was that the High Court of Rivers State lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as the property in question was situated in Umuahia, Abia State. The trial court upheld the objection. The court held that it indeed lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear a case involving property situated in another state, and that the determination of the claim would require visit to locus in quo in Abia State, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Rivers State. The court, thereby, struck out the suit.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court disagreed with the reasoning of the trial court, and resolved all legal issues in favour of the Respondent by holding that since the Appellant does business or resides in Port Harcourt, the High Court of Rivers State is clothed with jurisdiction to determine the case. The court thereby set aside the decision of the trial court and remitted the case to the Chief Judge of Rivers State for re-assignment to a different judge for an expeditious hearing.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain the appeal. The ground of the objection relates to service of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal to the Supreme Court, which was served C/o the counsel who represented the Respondent at the lower court, rather than service of the process on the Respondent at his address as stated on its Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal.
