SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT v. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON FRIDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Suit No: SC.203/2008 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme Court OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of the Supreme Court KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme Court AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of the Supreme Court SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of the Supreme Court Between SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT - Appellant(s) (2018) LPELR-45708(SC)And 1. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. HAJIYA MAIMUNA BELLO AJANAH - Respondent(s) 3. HAJIA HADIZA ABDULLAHI RATIO DECIDENDI 1. ACTION - LEGAL PERSONALITY: Position of the law as regards juristic or legal personality "Now, appellant's issue four which tallies with respondents' issue No.1, is a challenge on the legal personality of the appellant, that it is not a juristic personality. But, who is the appellant in this appeal? Paragraph 1 of the appellant/plaintiff's statement of claim at the Court of trial, stated that the plaintiff is a socio-political research and development company registered in Nigeria. The respondents' statement of defence, in denial, stated that the defendants were not aware of the plaintiff's status and that the plaintiff was not a juristic person in law. The trial Court treated the matter in a Ruling delivered on 9/12/99 holding that the plaintiff/appellant was an outfit registered in Nigeria: "All I now know about the plaintiff is that it is a Socio-Political Research and Development outfit registered in Nigeria as per paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim. It is not known under what part of the Companies and Allied Matters Act that it was registered. For instance, if the plaintiff was registered in the business name register, it could besides its legal capacity sue and be sued as per Ndoma-Egba, JCA in Yusuf v. Adewuyi Brothers & Co. (supra). If it is a partnership or a friendly society, it has a right to sue or be sued under its name. See: Carlen Nig. Ltd's case (supra) Order 11 Rule 9 of the High Court of the FCT Abuja (Civil Procedure Rules) 1991 also allows partners sues or be sued in the name of their firm." However, the Court below, in its judgment delivered on 13th February, 2008, per Aboki, JCA, made the following findings: "I have examined the printed records of this appeal, there is however no evidence that the plaintiff/respondent have(sic) actually been registered under the personality to sue and be sued. It has not been shown from its name or from the averment in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim whether it is a private limited liability company or a public liability company. It is clear from its name that it has not complied with the provisions of Section 29 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act which requires all companies to end their names with the word "Limited" - Ltd or "Public Liability Company" - Plc etc. There is nothing before the Court to show that the plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a business name under part B of Companies and Allied Act which requires disclosure of the business name registration number as required by Section 582 sub Section 1(c) of the Act. It was also not disclosed whether the plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a partnership." Thus, the plaintiff/respondent/appellant was found to be an unregistered outfit under the laws operating in Nigeria. The consequence is that a non-juristic person can neither sue nor be sued, for want of capacity. I adopt the analysis given by the Court below when it says: "It is trite that a non-juristic person cannot sue or be sued. It follows therefore that no action can be brought by or against any party other than a natural person or persons except where such a party has been conferred by a statute expressly or impliedly with a legal capacity. A statute can confer a legal personality on a party thus:- a) under the name by which it may sue or be sued. Or, b) a right to sue or be sued by that name such as in the cases of business name, partnership, trade union etc. See. Lion of Africa Insurance Company Ltd. v Esan (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.614) 197 at 201; Carlen Nig Ltd v. University of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR Pt 323) 631. Juridical personality is acquired when the law accepts and recognises the existence of unincorporated associations. On the other hand the capacity to sue and be sued is not thereby given by a mere recognition or acceptance of its existence, only the law confers that attribute or capacity and in most statutes the capacity to sue and be sued of an authority or body they create is expressed. See: Lion of Africa Insurance Pls v. Esan (supra) at page 201; Peat Marwick Ani Ogunde & Co. v. Okike (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.369) 71. I have examined the printed records of this appeal, there is however no evidence that the plaintiff/respondent have(sic) actually been registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any statute and have(sic) acquired legal personality to sue or be sued. It has not been shown from its name or from the averment in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim whether it is a private limited liability company or a public liability company. It is clear from its name that it has not complied with the provisions of Section 29 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act which requires all companies to end their names with the word "Limited" - Ltd or "public Liability Company" - Plc etc. There is nothing before the Court to show that the plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a business name under Part B of the Companies and Allied Matters Act which requires disclosure of the business name registration number as required by Section 582(1)(c) of the Act. It was also not disclosed whether the plaintiff/respondent has been registered as a partnership." The Court below, in my view, has stated the correct position of the law in relation to Companies and Allied matters. In this regard, issue 4 is decided against the appellant."Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 31-36, Paras. F-C) - read in context (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) 2. ACTION - LEGAL PERSONALITY: Position of the law as regards juristic or legal personality "First and foremost, it is clear from the records that the appellant was the plaintiff, at the trial Court where this case originated from. A plaintiff is said to be the party who brings a civil suit in a Court of law. And a party who commences an action in Court must be a person known to law, that is, a natural or an artificial person, given legal personality by statute. See; Alhaji Afia Trading and Transport Company Ltd v. Jesitas Insurance Company Ltd. (1986) 4 (Pt.38) 802. It means that no action can be brought or commenced by or against any party other than a natural person or body of persons, unless such a party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly either (a) a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued or (b) a right to sue or be sued by the name, See; Knight and Searle vs. Dove (1964) 2 All ER 307; Administrator Estate of General Sanni Abacha v. Eke-Spiff & Ors (2009) 3 SCM 1; (2009) NWLR (Pt.1133) 92. There is no doubt that from the onset, parties had joined issue on the juristic personality of the appellant. The appellant in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim had pleaded thus: "The plaintiff is a socio-political research and development Company registered in Nigeria. It engaged in Organizing seminars, workshops and Staff trainings for its clients." The respondents as defendants controverted the above averment of the appellant in their paragraph 2 of the statement of defence as follows: "The defendants are not aware of the plaintiff's status and shall at the trial lead evidence to show that the defendant (sic) is not a juristic person in law." In the Notice of preliminary Objection on ground of law filed by the respondents, the followings were given as the grounds of objection. "1. That the plaintiff is not a juristic person in law. 2. That this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter." On the writ of summons and statement of claim on pages 1 and 3 respectively, of the record, the appellant describes itself as: "SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LTD." Whereas in subsequent processes filed by the plaintiff/appellant including the processes used at the Court below and the Appeal filed to this Court against the judgment of the Court the Plaintiff/appellant never described itself again as a Limited Company. It has continued to describe itself simply as "Socio-Political Research Development." It is clear that the respondents had challenged personality of the appellant and it is certainly a procedural requirement that whenever issues are joined by parties in pleadings, evidence is required to prove these averments. And it is the person or party whom the burden of establishing that issue lies that must adduce satisfactory evidence. It follows therefore that when there is no such evidence, the issue must necessarily be resolved against the party. However, the nature of the evidence that will suffice as to whether in oral or documentary, may well depend on the issue in question and the requirement of the law, See;African Continental Bank Plc & Anor v.