Cil Consolidated Investments Ltd. V. First Bank of Nigeria Plc & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OGEBE, J.C.A.

The appellant and its Managing Director Mr. Efe Oputu sued the respondents in the Federal High Court, Lagos claiming the following reliefs in their statement of claim:
“(a) Against the first defendant:

The first plaintiff claims the sum of N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) as damages for unlawful detention, false imprisonment and harassment.

(b) The second plaintiff claims the sum of N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira only) against the first defendant for loss of business and forced closures caused by the Police and the P.T.F. on the instigation of the first defendant.

(c) Against all the defendants jointly and/or severally:
(c1) A declaration that the second plaintiff having fully paid a total sum of at least N6,000,000.00 (Six million Naira only) to the first defendant regarding the party’s issuance of a bank draft NO.04210 in that sum to a third party at the instruction of the second plaintiff is no longer indebted to the first defendant in any manner whatsoever.
(c2) A declaration that the transaction mentioned in (1) above does not disclose any criminal activity and therefore does not warrant the intervention and sustained harassment, periodic arrests and detention by the second defendant and by the third defendant acting through members of the Presidential Task Force on Trade Malpractices at the instigation of the first defendant.
(c3) Injunction restraining all the defendants hereto from further harassing persecuting, arresting, detaining the first plaintiff who is the Managing Director/Chief Executive of second plaintiff on account of the transaction mentioned in paragraph 1 hereto.”

After considerable delay by the plaintiffs in the court below in prosecuting their case the trial court struck out the suit. The first plaintiff who is not appealing lost interest in the case and did not apply for re-listing of the case.

The appellant filed a motion to re-list the case. The motion was argued and opposed by counsel to the first respondent. The trial judge Abudu J. held that the claims of the plaintiffs before him were inseparable and the suit could not be re-listed at the instance of the appellant alone. He therefore struck out the motion as misconceived.

It is against that decision that the appellant appealed to this court. In accordance with the rules of court the appellant filed a brief of argument and identified one issue for determination as follows:
“whether or not the Honourable lower court judge applied correct principles and was therefore right when he struck out the appellant’s motion to re-list suit.”

The first respondent adopted the same issue. The learned counsel for the appellant argued in the main that the appellant’s claim against the respondent was severable from the claim of its Managing Director who lost interest in the case.

The trial court failed to apply correct principles when he struck out the appellant’s motion to re-list the suit. He relied on the case of NNSC V. ESTABLISHMENT SIMA OF VADUZ (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 526.

I have read this case and it has to do with classification of grounds of appeal. The facts are different from the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the appellant’s brief is premised upon technicalities. The learned trial judge properly and meticulously evaluated the evidence and the statement of claim and made correct findings that the action is inseparable. He urged this court not to interfere with the ruling of the lower court.

I agree with this submission. I deliberately set out the claim at the beginning of this judgment so that one can see clearly that the claims of the two plaintiffs in the court below are intricately interwoven. It must be borne in mind that the appellant is a juristic person and could not act without a human agent. Once the first plaintiff lost interest in the suit it became imperative for the suit to be started afresh so that the appellant alone would confine itself to its own grievances against the respondents. The case was merely struck out and that left the appellant with complete freedom to commence a fresh action on its own.

I agree entirely with the learned trial judge that the claim as constituted could not be re-listed at the instance of the appellant alone. This appeal is misconceived and it is hereby dismissed with costs of N5, 000.00 to the first respondent.

Other Citations: (2003)LCN/1503(CA)