Nigeria Agip Oil Company Limited V Chief Gift Nkweke & Anor (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

One of the issues placed by the appellant for determination, which I consider more fundamental, is:

“Whether it would not have been just, fair and proper in the circumstances for the Court of Appeal to have directed/ordered the appellant to pay the appropriate filing fees in respect of its Notice of Appeal filed on 22nd March, 2010, the Appellant having taken remedial steps to regularize same.”

Your Lordships, just quite some few weeks ago, this Court was faced with the same question in Appeal No. SC. 693/2013 delivered on the 11th of December, 2015. Except for matters of details and some obvious dissimilarities, this appeal is on all fours with SC.693/2013. In SC.693/2013, which I happened to write the lead judgment, I made the following comments, among others:

“Secondly, a motion to regularize the payment of the shortfall was withdrawn by the learned SAN, Mr. Layonu, for the appellants and it was stuck out by the Court below. This, perhaps, influenced the mind of the Court below to strike out the appeal. It is true that such a decision is always placed within the discretionary

powers of a Court. Exercise of discretion, however, must always be judicial and judicious. A discretionary decision based on a principle that inadequate/shortfall of fling fees is fatal to an appeal is certainly a wrong exercise of discretion. It is settled law that a Court of law will not allow the provisions of an enactment to be read in such a way to deny access to Court by citizens. Thus, it is not the intention of the law to deny any litigant access to justice. A rule of Court stands to guide the Court in the conduct of its business and it must not hold as a “mistress” but as a hand maid. See: Onwuchaka v. NDIC (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 760) 371 at 393; Chrisdom Ind. Co. Ltd. v. AIB Ltd. (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt 768) 152 at 178 C & D; KTC Nig. Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) 244 at 296; Chime v. Chime (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt.701) 527 at 553. The established practice of the Courts is to lean towards granting a litigant access to Court rather than denying him of such access. The principle of the law as settled by this Court, as seen supra, in relation to settlement of insufficient filing fees on documents placed before the registry of a Court is

for the Court to direct that such insufficient, inadequate, shortfall be remedied. The striking out of the appeal at the stage the Court below did, was certainly unnecessary and improper.”

See: The Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited & 2 Ors v. Chief lsaac Osaro Agbara & 9 Ors. Appeal No. SC 693/2013 delivered on Friday 11th December, 2015. (unreported).

Some of the points of difference between SC.693/2013 and this appeal are in the names of the parties; division of the Federal High Court: months of delivery of the decisions by the divisions of the Federal High Court, panel members of the same division of the Port Harcourt Court of Appeal; learned counsel for the respective parties in the two appeals and ancillary matters relating an appeal.

The initial filing fees in SC.693/2013 assessed by the registry of the Asaba Division of the Federal High Court was N500.00 (five hundred naira) which the appellants paid to the same registry whereas, the one assessed by the registry of the Yenagoa Division of the Federal High Court was N200.00 (two hundred naira) which the appellant paid to the same registry.

In the appeal on hand, when the

issue of payment of appropriate filing fees in respect of the appellants Notice of Appeal arose, the appellant took steps to regularize same by bringing before the lower Court a motion on notice filed on 18/3/2013. After hearing submissions of counsel on 20/3/2013 the lower Court in its ruling delivered on the same day, dismissed the appellant’s application and proceeded to strike out the appellants appeal on the basis that its notice of appeal was incompetent by reason of the payment of insufficient filling fees.

Other issues of relevance in this appeal which were equally treated in SC.693/2013 are: filing of two Notices of Appeal; Leave to amend one of the Notices of Appeal etc. The appellants relied on the Notice of Appeal filed on 4th April, 2013 and abandoned the one filed on 20th, March, 2013.

For the detailed determination of this appeal the appellant formulated 3 issues as follows: