Hendrick Schep & Ors V. MR. Peter James Asifo-egbe & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division coram LIMAN, J., delivered on the 23rd March, 2010 in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/163/2009.

The Appellants being dissatisfied with the said ruling instituted this appeal vide a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 30th March 2010 wherein he set out three grounds of appeal. The Appellants’s Brief of argument is dated and filed 21st July, 2011. The Appellants also filed a Reply Brief to the 1st Respondent’s Brief dated and filed 22nd April, 2016.

The Appellants Briefs were settled by Prof. Yemi Osinbajo SAN, V.O.M Alonge (Mrs.), Ikem Isiekwena, Abimbola Ojenike of Simmons Cooper partners. The 1st Respondent filed a Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 17th September, 2012 and filed on the 18th September, 2012 and deemed on 11th April 2016. The 1st Respondent’s Brief was settled by Professor A.B. Kasunmu of Professor A.B. Kasunmu’s Chambers.

As already stated, three grounds of appeal were laid down in the Notice of Appeal and the Appellants distilled three issues for

1

determination in its Brief, to wit:

1. Does the Trial Court have jurisdiction over 1st Respondent?s substantive action in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/163/2009? If this question is answered in the negative; Can the trial Court grant 1st Respondent?s Motion for Interlocutory Injunction when it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the substantive action? (Distilled from Ground one of the Notice of Appeal)
2. Did the Trial Court properly exercise its discretion to grant Interlocutory Injunction in favour of the 1st Respondent who is neither a member, personal representative of a deceased, member nor person having legal right to seek relief in respect of the affairs of the 3rd Appellant company? (Distilled from Ground two of the Notice of Appeal)
3. Was the trial Court right when it granted Interlocutory injunction in respect of an asset (No. 8 High gate Street London) owned by a non party in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/163/2009? (Distilled from Ground Three of the Notice of Appeal)

The 1st Respondent on the other hand formulated four issues for determination as follows:

a. Whether or not the trial Court has Jurisdiction to determine the substantive

2

action in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/163/2009 and thereby grant the 1st Respondent’s Motion for Interlocutory Injunction.

b. Whether or not the 1st Respondent has any legal right to institute this action before the trial Court.

c. Whether or not the 1st Respondent is a ?proper Plaintiff? or person having locus standi to institute this action.

d. Whether the trial Court was right when it granted interlocutory injunction in respect of an asset (No. 8, Highgate Street, London) owned by a non-party in suit No: FHC/L/CS/163/2009.?