WHETHER THE QUESTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT?
WHETHER THE QUESTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT?
by Branham Chima.
Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed
✓ DEFINITION(S):
Juristic personality: refers to the legal recognition of an entity, such as a corporation or organisation, as having its own separate identity and legal rights. It means that the entity is treated as a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law, with the ability to enter into contracts, own property, and be held liable for its actions.
Question of fact: refers to an issue or dispute in a legal case that involves determining what actually happened or exists in reality. It deals with factual circumstances or events that need to be established through evidence, testimony, or documentation. Unlike a question of law, which involves the interpretation or application of legal principles, a question of fact focuses on establishing the truth or existence of specific facts. In legal proceedings, the determination of questions of fact is typically the responsibility of the judge or jury, who assess the evidence presented and make findings based on the credibility and weight of that evidence.
✓ ANSWER:
Yes. The question of juristic personality is a question of fact.
Hear the Supreme Court in Oboh & Anor v. NFL (SC.841/2016, January 28, 2022) per Ejembi Eko JSC: ‘In LION OF AFRICA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. ESAN (1999) 8 NWLR (pt. 614) 197, the objection that “Mr. & Mrs. Esan” was not a juristic persona was raised timeously at the trial Court, and not at the appellate Court for the first time as a ground of appeal. The issue: whether “Emman I. Oboh & Associate” is, or is not, a juristic persona is one of facts. He who asserts must prove that the fact, as asserted, exists in order to be entitled to judgment on the facts asserted: Sections 131 & 132 Evidence Act, 2011. The fact that “Emman I. Oboh & Associates” is not, allegedly, a juristic persona is not one established by mere hunch or intuition of the objector. It must be established by empirical evidence. This is what distinguishes this case from, and renders irrelevant and inapposite MAERSK LINE v. ADDIDE INVESTMENT LTD. (2002) 1 NWLR (pt. 778) 317; SLB CONSORTIUM LTD v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (pt. 1252) 317 to the preliminary objection of the 3rd Respondent, which objection is hereby overruled in its entirety.’
Comments
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts?