Asset Management Group Limited V. Genesiscorp Limited & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G.A. OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

The appellant as Plaintiff before the Lagos High Court issued a specially indorsed writ of summons pursuant to order 3 rules 4 and 9 of the Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules claiming from the 1st and 2nd Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Defendants) the sum of N500,000 being credit facilities granted by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant. Interest and penalty were also claimed on the principal sum. In compliance with the rules, a Statement of Claim was filed along with the writ of summons.

The Plaintiff thereafter brought a motion exparte praying for an order:

“Removing into the custody of this Honourable Court the Peugeot 503 Saloon Car with Registration No. LA 1000R; the Volkswagen Jetta Saloon Car with Registration No. LA 556R and the Volkswagen Jetta Saloon Car with Registration No. LA 557R property of the 1st defendant pending the determination of the motion on Notice;

In paragraphs 2(i), 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the affidavit in support of the motion it was deposed thus:

“2(1) On or about the 15th day of June 1993 at the request of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff, by its letter of the said date placed funds amounting to N500.000 (Five hundred thousand naira) with the 1st Defendant. A copy of the said letter is exhibited herewith and marked “AMG 1″.

4. That I am aware that the 1st Defendant owns a Peugeot 505 Saloon Car. Registration No. LA 1000R; a Volkswagen Jetta Saloon car Registration No. LA 556R; and a Volkswagen Jetta Saloon Car Registration No. LA 557R.

5. That the aforementioned cars are the only tangible assets of the 1st Defendant now remaining.

6. That both the 1st and 2nd Defendants are in grave financial difficulty whereupon they are likely in the immediate future to dispose of the cars in question without regard to the interests of the Plaintiff herein.

7. That the current value of the 3 (three) cars is not sufficient to meet the 1st Defendant’s outstandings to the Plaintiff.

8. That I honestly and reasonably believe that once the cars are disposed of by the defendant any judgment obtained by the Plaintiff against the said Defendants herein would be a mere barren judgment in that there would be no property of the said Defendant left upon which execution can be levied in satisfaction of any sum awarded.”

Several documentary exhibits were annexed to the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte. The lower court (Coram Thomas J) as he then was) on 4th October, 1994 granted the application pending the determination of the motion on Notice. The intervener/Respondent in this appeal later brought an application on notice seeking the following orders:

“1. Leave for the applicant to intervene in this suit.

2. An order discharging the order of mareva injunction granted by this court on 11 October 1994 as it relates to the following vehicles:-