America Specification Autos Limited & Anor V. Asset Management Corporation Of Nigeria (2017)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment)

The respondent’s utility for ex parte orders for possession of Four landed property situated in Lagos State and for the freezing of the financial institution accounts of the appellants have been granted by the Federal Excessive Court docket sitting in Lagos (the Court docket beneath), occasioning the enchantment.

The respondent filed preliminary objection to the enchantment which she argued within the respondent’s transient to the impact that grounds 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the discover of enchantment are a mixture of information and combined legislation and reality emanating from an interlocutory determination subsequently the failure by the appellants to acquire the go away of the Court docket to file and argue the mentioned grounds of enchantment render the grounds incompetent which ought to be struck out citing in assist the circumstances of Ohajunwa v. Obelle (2008) Three NWLR (Pt.1073) 52 at 72 – 73, Nwekeson v. Onuigbo (1991) Three NWLR (Pt.178) 125 at 131, Bello v. Pategi (2000) Eight NWLR (pt.667) 21 at 29, Nasiru v. Bimdawa (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt.961) (no pagination), First Fuels Ltd. v. N.N.P.C. (2007) 2 NWLR (pt.1018) 276 at 293 and 295, Akaaer Jov. V. Kutuku Dom (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.620) 538, Part

1

242(1) of the 1999 Structure.

The respondent additionally argued that the bottom 7 of the discover of enchantment didn’t come up from the choice of the Court docket beneath and doesn’t have particulars and ought to be struck out citing in assist Bunwanhot v. Bunwanhot (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1166) 22 at 40, Nwankwo v. Ecumenical Growth Co-operative Society EDCS U.A. (2007) 5 NWLR (pt.1027) 377, Obi v. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1046) 105 vide Lucas Pharm Ltd. v. Roche (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.360) 28 at 35 – 36, Nwako v. Governor, Rivers State (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.104) 470 and Order 7 Rule 2 of the Court docket of Attraction Guidelines 2016; and that since go away was not sought to file and argue grounds 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the discover of enchantment and floor 7 thereof doesn’t come up from the choice of the Court docket beneath and doesn’t even have particulars the situation precedent to vest the Court docket with the jurisdiction to entertain the mentioned grounds of enchantment is absent consequently the mentioned grounds of enchantment ought to be struck out for incompetence and wish of jurisdiction citing in assist the case of Madukolu and ors. v. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR (Pt.2) 581 at 583.

?It was additionally argued that subject

2

one of many appellants’ points for dedication having been distilled from incompetent grounds 3, 5 and 6 of the discover of enchantment and from grounds 1, 2 and Four that are competent ought to be struck out vide Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.999) 1 at 108; that it’s mistaken for the appellant to distill a couple of subject (points two and three) from a single floor of enchantment (floor 10) videIbe v. Ibe (2008) All FWLR (pt.405) 1719 at 1725: consequently the respondent urged that the preliminary objection be upheld and the enchantment struck out.

The reply transient of the appellants filed on 16-05-17 contended that the grounds of enchantment arose from determination on injunction which by Part 241(1)(f)(ii) grants the appellants the appropriate to enchantment as of proper and likewise as grounds 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the discover of enchantment query the propriety of granting an injunction with out listening to the appellants is jurisdictional and doesn’t require the go away of the Court docket vide Part 241(1)(b) of the 1999 Structure, the preliminary objection ought to be dismissed.

Part 241(1)(f)(ii) of the 1999 Structure gives that –

“An enchantment shall lie from selections of the Federal Excessive

3

Court docket or a Excessive Court docket to the Court docket of Attraction as of proper within the following circumstances ?