Chisco Samuel Trading Company Limited V. Vincent Iloerike & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court holden at Lagos State delivered on 13th day of October, 2009 by Hon. Justice J. E. Shakarho.

The facts as briefly stated:
By a writ of summon together with statement of claim the 1st – 16th Respondents as Plaintiffs claimed against the 1st – 7th Defendant now as follows:
“a) A DECLARATION that the 2nd to 16th defendants are not elected executives of Association of Progressive Traders (APT) Lagos having not been duly elected and therefore cannot act, perform or carry out any duty on behalf of the Association as executives.
b) A DECLARATION that is unlawful for a trustee of the Association of Progressive Traders of Nigeria to act as elected executive member except as provided for in the Association’s Constitution.
c) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd to 6th defendants from presenting and parading themselves as the elected executives of Association of Progressive Traders (APT) Lagos.
d) AN ORDER of the Honourable Court allowing the Plaintiffs to conduct

1

election into the executives of the Association of Progressive Traders.
e) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd to 6th defendants from preventing and/or obstructing the Plaintiffs from conducting election into the executives of Association of Progressive Traders
f) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the 2nd to 6th defendants to either allow the members of Association of Progressive Traders Lagos who had made some deposits as payments for shops at APT Plaza to complete their parents and have their shops allotted to them,
OR ALTERNATIVELY
Refund to all of them their monies as money had and received for a failed consideration
g) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the 2nd to 6th defendants to account to the Plaintiff for all monies contributed for the building of shops at APT Plaza, sale of shops kiosks, empty land spaces and lease of land to celtel (now zain)”

At the time of commencing the suit, the 1st -16th Respondent filed a motion for interim injunction as well as a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The motion ex parte was taken and the Court granted the following orders:

2

1. An order restraining the 1st-7th Defendants/2nd set of Respondent from selling, alienating or dealing with the property/assets of the 1st defendants.
2. An order freezing the accounts of the 1st Defendants,”

On the 30th of March 2009, the Court visited the locus in quo and discovered that its earlier order has been violated and subsequently made the following orders:
“1. All work shall stop in Building A immediately until the owner by his counsel comes to Court in writing to process his ownership.
2. The goods in Building B can be removed for sale but no further construction work like the finishing of painting, toilet or other work must continue.
When all the goods found in Building B are removed no other goods shall application are heard and determined.
3. That this suit stand adjourned to 29/04/09 for hearing,”

Consequent upon the order made on 30th March, 2009 the Appellant who was not a party to the original suit but felt aggrieved by the order, applied vide a Motion on Notice dated 23rd April, 2009 to be joined in the suit and for the order of 30th March, 2009 to be set aside.

The 1st -16th Respondent

3

opposed the Application and filed a counter affidavit dated 2nd June, 2009.

The trial judge in his ruling granted the Appellant’s prayer for joinder but refused to set aside the order of 30th March, 2009.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling has brought this appeal.
The original Notice of Appeal was filed on 20th November, 2013 but was further amended by order of this Court on the 12th February 2014 Containing two(2) grounds of appeal.