SOUL HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTRE LIMITED vs JOSEPH OBUOBI SAFO & ANOTHER

Plaintiff: My Lady, my Counsel says he is visiting the lavatory.

By Court: The motion is slated for this morning. Counesl for the Plaintiff who filed the motion is absent. The Court will come under the authority of The Republic v. Court of Appeal, Ex-parte: Eastern Alloys [2007-2008] SCGLR, per the pronouncement of Atuguba JSC that, a motion on its due date even in the absence of Counsel for Applicant is as good as moved; and deem the motion to have been moved.

Counsel for Defendants: My Lady, I have responded by way of Affidavit in Opposition filed on the 14th of July, 2023. The gravamen of my response is that the application is incompetent because the Plaintiff is challenging the jurisdiction of this Court on a Counterclaim founded on the thought of defamation. This Court under Section 16 of the Courts Act is a High Court and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain all matters: civil or criminal. The reference to a particular Court as Labour Court or Commercial Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court from entertaining civil matters or torts particularly so, when the Plaintiff’s Managing Director who initiated this action is the one who is the Defendant in the Counterclaim. Order 12 of C.I. 47 is clear that Counterclaims are actions on their own but when a party has a Counterclaim against the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff and others, the person does not have to file a separate suit. He will be well advised to file a Counterclaim in addition to his defence in this action. This is provided for under Order 12 Rule 1 of C.I. 47 – read out and that is what we did here. On the angle of jurisdiction, it is totally misplaced. I pray the Court to dismisses the application.

RULING

By Court: The Court having heard submissions in this matter and having perused all the evidence before it rules as follows: concerning the issue of jurisdiction, as Counsel for the Defendants rightly stated, this Court has jurisdiction as provided by Law; Section 15 of the Courts Act to handle civil matters and therefore this issue is not outside my jurisdiction. Concerning the issue of the Counterclaim, the Court does not deny the argument made by Counsel for Defendants on the issue of addition of Counterclaims under Order 12 Rule 2. However, Order 12 Rule 7(1) makes it clear that if it appears to the Court that the joinder of the cause of action may delay or be inconvenient in the Counterclaim, the Court may order such trials as may be just. The Defendants made two separat