‘Court cannot grant a claim not sought’ Continued from last week

Considering the undisputed facts listed above I have no reason to tamper with the holding of the lower court that the order made was a nullity.Firstly, it is a breach of the 3rd defendant’s fundamental right to fair hearing against whom an order was made without being put on notice See SKEN CONSULT NIG. LTD […]

Considering the undisputed facts listed above I have no reason to tamper with the holding of the lower court that the order made was a nullity.
Firstly, it is a breach of the 3rd defendant’s fundamental right to fair hearing against whom an order was made without being put on notice See SKEN CONSULT NIG. LTD v. UKEY (1981) 1 SC. 6.
Secondly, it was made when the case came up for mention. See MBADINUJU vs EZUKA (supra)
Thirdly, it was made when no such prayer was sought by any of the parties to the case.
It is trite law that the trial court, and indeed, courts of law are bound by the prayers or claims sought before them. It cannot grant a claim or a prayer not sought. Any such claim or prayer granted without being pre-claimed by parties is invalid. It is in view of the above that I resolve the 1st issue in favour of the respondent.
On the second issue, the appellant submitted that the order made on 16/2/2002 did not pre-judge the substantive matter. The order for release is not the main order and as such the order was properly and validly made
On the other order, the learned counsel to the respondent contended that the order made on 11/2/2002 goes to the root of the substantive case. He referred to appellants claim and pointed out that the main claim is to the release of the goods in dispute.
My lords, without dissipating much energy on this issue, it is clear that order of 11/2/2002 were predicated on the earlier order made on 16/11/2000 which order I have earlier held to be a nullity and set aside. Since this order has been set aside, the order of the trial court made on 11/2/2002 can no longer stand. The said order is equally set aside. However, it must be pointed out that this court in a long line of cases has repeatedly warned that a court hearing an interlocutory application should refrain from commenting or determining any of the issues in dispute in the substantive case.
In the instant case, the order made by the court touched on the substantive claim and as such pre-judging the matter before it. I also resolve the second issue in favour of the respondent.
Concerning the cross appeal, I have carefully perused the record of appeal I could find no such evidence to show that the trial court sat in chambers as claimed.
For the above reasons my lords, the appeal and cross appeal lack merit and they are consequently dismissed. The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
It is quite unfortunate that a matter instituted in 1998 is yet to be heard on merit. The parties have concentrated on interlocutory matters without taking steps to ensure the hearing of the appeal on merit. If it has taken 15 years to pursue interlocutory matters how long would it take to conclude the substantive matter? This does not augur well for our administration of justice system. Indeed, it is a calculated blackmail to the common law system. As a result, I hereby order that this case be given speedy and accelerated hearing at the trial court.
I award the sum of N100,000.00 as costs in favour of the respondent herein.

Concluded