City Biscuit Manufacturing Company Limited & Anor V. Felix Okoli Ezeonwu (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal No. CA/E/69/06 against the judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria at Enugu delivered on 10th May, 2005 by A. O. Ajekaiye J in suit No. FHC/AN/M98/1997 was commenced on 1-8-2005 by the appellant filing a notice of appeal on that date containing just one ground of appeal. With leave of this Court the notice of appeal was amended on 30/5/2006 and further amended on 4/4/2013.

Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – appellants amended brief and amended respondent’s brief.

The appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination –

ISSUE NO. 1 ARISING FROM GROUND ONE

Whether the learned trial judge was right to grant the respondent both the main and the alternative reliefs as he claimed?

ISSUE NO. 2 ARISING FROM GROUND 2

Whether there existed before the learned trial judge, new facts and circumstances outside the ones that existed and considered by the Supreme Court before delivering its judgment tendered as Exhibit F and making the orders therein contained, to

1

warrant the learned trial judge making the order of winding up the 1st appellant?

ISSUE NO. 3 ARISING FROM GROUND 3

Whether the learned trial judge was not adversely affected in his determination of this suit which thus led to miscarriage of justice when he believed that the appellant particularly, the 2nd appellant, perpetrated all the acts which the respondent highlighted in Paragraph 5 (x) of his petition, which were acts which gave rise to suit No. FHC/E/5/89 between the same parties and resolved by the Supreme Court in its judgment tendered as Exhibit F?

ISSUE NO. 4 ARISING FROM GROUND FOUR

Whether the learned trial judge’s decision to wind up the 1st appellant was not influenced by his believing that the appellants have conducted the affairs of the company in manners callously oppressive to the respondent, when no new evidence of oppression was led and shown to have occurred after the Supreme Court judgment tendered as Exhibit F?