International Standard Securities V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (Registrar’s Department) (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Investment and Securities Tribunal delivered on the 24th of July 2004 and also against the final judgment of the Tribunal delivered on the 19th of October, 2004.

FACTS:

The action leading to this appeal was commenced by the present Respondent by way of Originating Application at the Investments and Securities Tribunal, Abuja on the 3rd of November, 2003. The Respondent at the Tribunal (Now Appellant) filed its statement of Defence and counter affidavit on 5th December, 2003 and on the same 5th December 2003, the Tribunal fixed the case for hearing on 14th January, 2004.

The hearing did not start on the said 14th January 2004 because the Applicant had requested an adjournment to enable it amend its Originating Application and witness Statement.

While the Applicant was yet to reflect the proposed amendments, the Respondent brought an application dated the 4th March, 2004 seeking an order of the Tribunal striking out the Applicant’s case for want of diligent prosecution which application was refused on the 26th of March, while the case was adjourned for hearing to the 29th and 30th of April, 2004.

On that date while counsel for the Applicant was requesting another adjournment to enable her put before the Tribunal documents she had received from the Securities And Exchange Commission relevant to the case. Learned counsel for the Respondent countered that the Tribunal had exhausted its jurisdiction either to grant an adjournment or take any further step in the case. He argued that by Section 236(5) of the Investments And Securities Act which created the Tribunal, the Tribunal must decide any case coming before it within three months from the date of commencement of the action. He insisted that the three months having elapsed since the filing of the Originating Application on the 3rd of November 2003, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain or continue to entertain the action had corresponding expired.

The Tribunal in response, ordered both parties to file written addresses on the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent. The Briefs were filed and exchanged and on the 24th June, 2004 the Tribunal gave a considered Ruling in which it maintained that it remained seised of jurisdiction to hear and conclude the case even after the three months period limited by the Act had expired.

Sequel to the above stated Ruling, the tribunal adjourned the case to the 21st and 22nd of July, 2004 for hearing. The case was duly heard and after hearing of the addresses the Tribunal delivered its judgment on the 19th October, 2004 wherein the Tribunal held that the Respondent is liable to indemnify the Applicant in the sum of N15,042, 833.12 being the total loss suffered by the Applicant as a result of the verification exercise carried out by the Applicant on the request of the Respondent involving 344,923 units of Unilever Plc shares which were sold by the Respondent, the Respondent having issued a letter of indemnity to the Applicant covering any loss arising from the said verification.

Dissatisfied with both the Ruling of 24th June and the Judgment of 19th October, 2004 the Respondent filed its Notice of Appeal dated 22nd October, 2004 which Notice of Appeal was by leave of Court of Appeal amended with 10 grounds of appeal. It can be seen that only Grounds 1 and 3 read cumulatively attack the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which are really relevant for the determination of this appeal. These two grounds read as follows without the particulars:-

GROUND NO. 1

The Tribunal erred in law when in construing Section 236(5) of the Investment And Securities Act 1999 it failed to accord the provision of the statute with its natural and ordinary meaning.

GROUND NO.3

The judgment of the lower court was delivered on the 19th of October, 2004 on which date the jurisdiction of the Lower Court had (sic) lapsed/expired.