Adesupo Adetona V. Ita Edet & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

The Appellant is the Applicant and prays for an order staying further proceedings in Suit No. LD/17/98 pending at the Lagos High Court before Rhodes- Vivour J.

Before the lower Court, the Appellant/Applicant was the 2nd Defendant. He brought an application jointly with the 1st Defendant, Newspin Limited that the suit by the plaintiff/Respondents be dismissed on the ground that the statement of claim filed disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Alternatively, they asked that their names be struck out from the suit.

On 28/5/98,Rhodes- Vivour J, in a considered ruling refused the application. The Applicant was dissatisfied with the ruling. He brought an appeal against it on three grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal without their particulars read: “3.1 The learned trial Judge erred in law held that a cause of action is clearly established against 2nd Defendant/Appellant but failed to identify or refer to specific averments of the statement of claim in support of his decision.

3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-

“Now if the plaintiff succeeds in his action it is the receiver that would pay the judgment debt. Surely, the 2nd defendant is a necessary party in this suit…”

3.3 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-

“Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the plaintiff’s claim is enforceable against the Insurance Company i.e. the 3rd Defendant decides to pay the claim; it is to the receiver such money shall be paid and not directly to the plaintiff. It is the receiver who shall thereafter pay to the plaintiff the said sum…”

The Applicant had also on 27/5/98, raised a notice of preliminary objection on the following grounds:-

“1. The 2nd Defendant is sued by the plaintiff as per his statement of claim dated 6/1/98, by virtue of his office as the receiver of the 1st Defendant.

2. The plaintiffs claim against the 2nd Defendant a receiver of the 1st Defendant arose from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act particularly Section 393.
3. It is only the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain any matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Decree 1990, by virtue of Section 230(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, (as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.)”.

The trial Judge took arguments for and against the preliminary objection and on 28th May, 1999, in a considered ruling overruled the preliminary objection.

Once again, the 2nd Defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling overruling his preliminary objection. He brought an appeal against the ruling on two grounds of appeal. The said grounds without their particulars read:

“3.1 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he dismissed the 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s preliminary objection as contained in the notice dated the 27th day of May, 1998, to the effect that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant being a matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Decree, 1990.

3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he dismissed the 2nd Defendant/Appellant’s preliminary objection having already held that “Matters that arise from the operation of companies and which the legislators have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to adjudicate upon are matters such as dealings in Share Holdings, Winding Up of the Company, Receivership, Liquidation…”