Chief O. Akinfe & Ors. V. United Bank For Africa Plc. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

DENTON-WEST, J.C.A.

In the High Court of Lagos State, the plaintiffs (1-3 above) filed separate actions with very similar claims. The facts of the three separate actions emanated out of the same incidence of the same defendant.

The three suits were consolidated by the order of the trial court of 16th April, 1997 and the claims of the plaintiffs were treated at a go by the lower court.

The series of claims in the three different actions before consolidation are fashioned in the same manner/fashion, and followed the sequence below:

“(1) A declaration nullifying the retirement of the plaintiffs by the defendant same not being in cognizance of the defendant’s procedure/rules and so ineffectual by illegal.

(2) A declaration that the plaintiffs’ entitlements/emolument at retirement to be calculated on the basis of the new/ improved salary scale/structure of the defendant and on the previously salary scale upon which their emolument was calculated.

(3) An order compelling the defendant to comply with the declaration above.

(4) General and special damages of varying sums of money in all the three separate actions.”

On the 6th of October, 1999, the learned trial Judge delivered judgment in the consolidated suit and dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs.

By a notice of appeal dated 26th day of November, 1999, the plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the lower court (the High Court of Lagos State). By an application, motion on notice dated 30th January, 2001 the appellants applied to this court for departure from the Rules of Court and that the bundle of documents marked as ‘exhibit A’ should be adopted as the record of appeal. The said application was granted on the 15th of April, 2002.

The appellants filed it’s brief of argument on the 4th of February, 2002 and formulated three issues for determination therein.

The respondent filed its brief of argument on the 24th of September, 2002 and formulated three issues for determination. The issues formulated by the respondent aptly absorbs the issues formulated by the appellants and are properly distilled out of the three grounds raised by the appellants in the notice of appeal.

The appellants in the treatment of issues started by considering the preliminary point of whether the lower court was right to have consolidated the three actions at the lower court. The appellants relied on Iloabuchi v. Ebigbo (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 197 at p. 222, paras. B – E; Imam Lawal Lediju v. Dairu Odulaja (1943) 17 NLR 15; and Attah v. Nnacho (1964) 1 All NLR 313 at 316-7.

The appellants concluded that the lower court was right to have consolidated the suits. The consolidation of the three suits from which this present appeal has arisen was not an issue or subject of the judgment which is herein appealed against. Also, consolidation of the cases cannot rightly be said to emanate or be distilled from the grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal. The appellants also did not list the consolidation of the cases at the lower court as one of its issues for determination. Therefore, I find the argument on the issue of consolidation to be extrinsic and irrelevant to this appeal, same is incompetent and accordingly discountenanced.