Facts:
Before the lower Court, the Appellant herein as the Defendant raised a Preliminary Objection against the competence of the Respondent’s Suit in which the Respondent was seeking by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim certain reliefs. By its Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on the 2nd of March 2017, the Appellant sought for the dismissal of the suit in limine on the Grounds that:
(a) It is the mandatory requirement of the law that the condition precedent or local remedies provided in the agreement of the parties must be exhausted first before instituting any action.
(b) The Claimant is a dead company as it has being wound up and only waiting for its burial ceremony.
(c) There is a pending order of the Honourable Court in the ruling of 4th of June, 2016 that the parties in this suit must conclude the compulsory (ADR) Alternative Dispute Resolution in line with the Order 25 Rule 6 of the Rules of this Honourable court.
(d) The Motion dated and filed on the 31st of January, 2017, is pre-emptive in nature and an abuse of the Motion dated 23rd of June, 2016 as they are similar and want to achieve the same means.
(e) The facts and the relieve praying in the said motion are similar to the one in the main suit before this Honourable court.”
In its considered Ruling, the lower Court refused the Appellant’s preliminary objection for being misconceived in law thus leaving only the alternative prayer for the dismissal or the Striking out of the Motion on Notice dated 31/1/17 for being an abuse of court process because according to the Defendant/Objector, the said application is pre-emptive of the decision of the court and that a similar motion has being (sic) filed by the Claimant’s Counsel which is still yet (sic) to be held (sic) by this Honourable court.