Adekola Mustapha V. Corporate Affairs Commission (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

This is an Appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court; Abuja delivered on the 25th day of May, 2004 by S.J. Adah J.

The facts of the case are briefly stated as follows: The Plaintiff presented the names of three proposed Companies to the Defendant for Registration/Reservation but the Defendant refused to reserve the names on the grounds that there were in existence registered Companies with identical or similar names. The Plaintiff not satisfied with the decision of the Respondent filed a writ of certiorari in the lower Court dated 10th October, 2002 seeking for the following reliefs:

“i. An Order quashing the decision of the Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission dated 30/5/2002 not to accept the following names sent to him for reservation pursuant to section 32(1) of the Companies anti Allied Matters Act, 1990 viz, A.A. Investment Nigeria Limited and A.A. Concerns Limited and a further decision not to accept Blue Sea Resources Limited for registration, which decision is contained on the form for availability check and reservation of name dated 26/9/2002.

ii. An Order compelling him to accept and reserve the names for registration. ”

The lower Court heard the matter and gave a judgment on the 25th day of May, 2004 dismissing the claims of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court appealed to this Court.

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated the 17th day of May 2006 was filed on the same date. The Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 21st July, 2006 was filed on 21st November, 2006. The Appellant’s Reply Brief dated 22nd November, 2006 was filed on the same date. At the hearing of the Appeal both parties adopted their respective Briefs of argument.

‘The Appellant from his two Grounds of Appeal distilled two issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether all the 3 names submitted for reservation by the Appellant are similar in the way they sound, the way they look and or in meaning with the ones the Respondent marked against them as a result of which the appellant’s application was refused.

2. Whether or not the Respondent can make use of interpretation aids/Dictionaries in arriving at its decision on similarity of names.”

The Respondent raised only one issue for determination in this Appeal which reads as follows:

“Whether the trial judge was right in holding that the names sought to be registered by the Plaintiff/Appellant were identical or similar to the names of companies already in existence and were properly refused by the Respondent acting pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990 (herein CAMA)”

In the instant case, having carefully perused the issues for determination formulated by the parties, I observe that the issue formulated by the Respondent has properly and adequately accommodated the two issues formulated by the Appellant and it is capable of finally determining the dispute between the parties. It is for this reason that I find the issue formulated by the Respondent preferable and same is adopted for the determination of this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr Adekola Mustapha informed the Court that he submitted three names of Companies for registration and they are – Ayida Investment (Nigeria) Limited, A.A. Concerns Limited and Blue Sea Resources Limited at different dates in 2002 to the Respondent for reservation pursuant to Section 32(1),(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

He maintained that the Respondent did not approve the names, even after he wrote a letter of complaint to the Respondent urging it to reconsider its position.