Compagnie Generale De Geophysique Nigeria Limited V. Prince Paul A. Ogiugo (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D). J.C.A (Delivering the leading Judgment)

The facts of this appeal are short and straightforward. The Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent in the latter’s premises situate at Ugo in Orhionmwon Local Government Area of Edo State. The tenancy agreement provided in its paragraph 9 an arbitration clause. Following certain disagreement between the parties, the cute Respondent commenced proceedings at the Abudu Judicial Division of Edo State High Court and filed his Statement of Claim. Upon service of the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim on it, the Appellant entered a conditional appearance and thereafter brought an application for stay of proceedings pending arbitration. The Respondent filed a counter-affidavit.

The application for stay came before Edokpayi J (as he then was) who, after hearing arguments thereon struck out the application in his ruling. The present appeal which is founded on four Grounds of Appeal is against that ruling. The four grounds of appeal are as set out herein without their particulars. They read:

‘GROUND 1

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the motion to stay proceedings until arbitration was not timeous as it ought to have been filed contemporaneously by S. 4 of the Arbitration Act with the memorandum of conditional appearance which is a first statement of substance on the dispute.

GROUND 2

The learned trial judge erred in law when he overruled Defendant’s application on ground that in the alternative Defendant ought to have come by way of a preliminary objection instead of a motion on Notice.

GROUND 3

The learned trial judge erred in law when he assumed original Jurisdiction and failed to stay the Suit pending arbitration.

GROUND 4

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that Defendant/Applicant ought to have specifically asked (sic) for reference to arbitration after a stay.”

Two issues were distilled in the Appellant’s brief for determination as follows;

“(i) Whether Appellant’s application was not a due and sufficient application for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.

(ii) Whether the Suit ought not to be stayed pending arbitration.”