Keystone Bank Limited V. Okeb Nigeria Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered by Honourable Justice M.M. Dodo on the 8thof March, 2012. The appellant dissatisfied appealed by a notice and grounds of appeal dated the 20th of April, 2012 but filed on the 24th of April, 2012.The grounds shorn of their particulars are:-
GROUND ONE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he set aside the sale of the filling station mortgage to the Appellant by the 1st Respondent as security for overdraft facilities granted to it by the Appellant.
GROUND TWO
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that Exhibit D was invalidated by Exhibit B executed between the Appellant and the Respondents.
GROUND THREE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he came to the conclusion that an unincorporated legal entity cannot be a party to a purchase transaction contrary to Section 72 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004, dealing with pre-incorporation contracts.
GROUND FOUR:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held

1

the sale transaction between the Appellant and Al Qudus Global Services Limited was a fraud without any proof of same beyond reasonable doubt.
GROUND FIVE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he awarded the sum of N76,014,800.00 (Seventy Six Million, Fourteen Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira) to the Respondent as general damages for loss of earnings when the said award is inconsistent with the principles of law for the grant of special damages and, therefore, unjustified.
GROUND SIX:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he dismissed the Appellant’s Counter-claim on the ground that the Counter-claim was abandoned by the Appellant.
GROUND SEVEN:
The judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence.

Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN of counsel to the appellant in his brief dated the 26th of May, 2015 and filed on the 27th of May, 2015 formulated the following issues for determination on behalf of appellant
1. Whether on a proper consideration of the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties at the trial Court, the decisions leading to and the order setting aside the sale of the Filling Station is unjustified.

2

(Grounds 1, 3 and 4).
2. Whether the decision of the learned trial judge invalidating the Deed of Legal Mortgage (Exhibit D) is altogether erroneous and unjustified in law. (Ground 2).
3. Whether or not the learned trial judge fell into a grave error when he held that the Appellant’s Counter claim was abandoned. {Ground 6}
4. Whether the award of damages in the sum of N76,014,800.00 is justified.

The following issues were formulated for the respondents in the brief settled by P. A. Akubo, Esq. SAN, of counsel:
1. Whether upon proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before the trial Court, the learned trail judge was right or justified in invalidating the Deed of Legal Mortgage, to wit, Exhibit “D and setting aside the purported sale of 1stRespondent’s Filling Station. (Ground 1, 2, 3 and 4)
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the Counter-Cl3im of the Appellant. (Ground 6)
3. Whether having regard to the entire circumstance, the learned trial judge was right or justified in awarding N76,014,800.00 as Special Damages or loss of earning Per Annum with effect from

3

October, 2005 till judgment as claimed by the Respondents.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
The respondents formulated the following issues for determination in their preliminary objection:
1. Whether the appeal vide the notice of appeal dated the 20th day of April, 2012 is not tantamount to abuse of Court process and liable to be dismissed having regard to an earlier notice of appeal dated and filed on the 27th of March, 2012 by the same appellant on the same subject.
2. Whether grounds 3 and 5 of the notice of appeal dated 20th day of April, 2012 are not altogether incompetent having not directly arisen from the judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 8th March, 2012.
3. Whether ground 7 of the notice of appeal dated 20th April, 2012 ought not to be deemed as abandoned and liable to be struck out there being no issue thereof for determination by the appellant.

The issues formulated in the preliminary objection were adopted by the appellants.

On issue one of the preliminary objection it is submitted for the respondent that it is abuse of Court process for the appellant to file a notice of appeal dated the 27th of March, 2012,

4