Contract Resource Nigeria Ltd V United Bank For Africa Plc (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 12th day of June, 2003, wherein that court allowed the appeal and ordered a rehearing of the third party claim before another judge of the Enugu State High Court other than the learned trial Chief Judge,

The 1st appellant as plaintiff in Suit No, E428/99, sued the 2nd appellant as defendant. Trial was in the Enugu High Court, Enugu State. Ugwu CJ (as he then was) presided. The plaintiff claimed the sum of N46m from the defendant. The sum was debt due to the plaintiff which became payable from a contract agreement dated the 15th of June, 1998. The plaintiff further claimed 25% compound interest on the sum from 20th day of December 1998 till judgment and post judgment interest of 10%. The defendant admitted liability but claimed that its default in paying its debt was due to the negligence of its bankers, UBA PLC.

On 20/3/2000, the plaintiff filed Motion for judgment against the defendant, and on 4/4/2000 the learned trial Chief Judge entered judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of N46m plus interest. Meanwhile the defendant had taken out third party claim against UBA PLC. The learned Chief Judge fixed hearing for the 9th of May 2000, but in unexplained circumstances the third party claim was heard on the 7th of April, 2000 in the absence of UBA PLC, and judgment entered against UBA PLC for N46m UBA PLC quickly lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal, Enugu Division allowed the appeal, and remitted the third party claim for hearing all over again before a judge of the Enugu State High Court other than the learned Chief Judge of Enugu State.

This appeal is against that judgment, but interestingly the 1st appellant who was not a party in the third party claim and not a party in the court below is the 1st appellant before this court. The respondent, UBA PLC filed a Preliminary objection on the 14th of July 2004 to the hearing of this appeal. Order 2 Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules provides for the filing of preliminary objections. The fundamental requirement is that the preliminary objection must be filed and served on the appellant three days before the hearing of the appeal thereby removing the element of surprise and giving the appellant enough time to respond. The purpose of a Preliminary objection is to contend that the appeal is defective or incompetent. If sustained the appeal would no longer be heard. A successful preliminary objection terminates the hearing of an appeal. See

NEPA v. Ango 2001 15 NWLR pt. 737 pg.627

Ndigwe v. Nwude 1999 11 NWLR pt.626 pg. 314

Preliminary objections are usually on Law consequently no affidavit is necessary, but where the need to produce or rely on facts becomes necessary an affidavit ought to be filed. In this case the respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary objection supported by a 14 paragraph affidavit. In the circumstances an affidavit is necessary because there is reliance on facts, and facts have no views. They are sacred.

The grounds of the Preliminary objection are:

1. Contract Resource Nigeria Limited has no locus standi in this appeal since it was not a party in the lower court and has neither applied for nor obtained leave to appeal as an interested party;
2. The appeal is incompetent because the notice of appeal was signed by a person who is not a legal practitioner, the proper appellant (Mode Nigeria Ltd) being an artificial person; and
3. The appellants’ brief of argument is incompetent, not having been signed by a legal practitioner on behalf of the true appellant, an artificial person.

Relevant extracts from the affidavit in support read thus:

2. This appeal originated from suit No.E/428/99 instituted in the Enugu State High Court sitting at Enugu with Contract Resource Nigeria Limited, as plaintiff, Mode Nigeria Limited, as defendant, and United Bank for Africa PLC as third party.
3. On 4/4/2000 the court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff and the third party claim between Mode Nigeria Ltd and UBA PLC was adjourned to 9/5/2000.
4. In its absence and without hearing notice having been issued and served on UBA PLC, the court entered judgment prematurely against UBA PLC on 12/4/2000 sequel to an exparte motion filed by Mode Nigeria Ltd.
5. On 11/7/2000 UBA PLC filed a notice of appeal CA/E/158/2000 to have the judgment of 12/4/2000 set aside by the Court of Appeal as a nullity on grounds of serious violation of UBA’s right to fair hearing.
6. The applicants’ counsel, DR. A.J.C. Mogbana, has advised the third party and it believes that the said appeal was between the third party (UBA PLC) as appellant and the defendant (Mode Nig Ltd) as respondent.
7. The Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, on 12/6/2003 allowed the appeal, declared the judgment in the third party claim as a nullity and set it aside.
8. The defendant/respondent in the Court of Appeal appealed to this court against the judgment of the lower court in favour of the third party.
9. The said applicant’s counsel has informed the applicant and it believes that Contract Resource Nig Ltd was not a party in the lower court, and not having obtained leave to appeal as an interested party, has no right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the lower court.
10. The notice of appeal and appellants’ brief in this appeal has been signed by Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo.
11. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo is not a legal practitioner empowered by Law to sign such processes.

At the hearing of the appeal on the 11th day of April, 2011 learned counsel for the respondent, DR A.J.C. Mogbana observed that the 1st appellant has no locus standi, as it was not a party in the court below, and it was not granted leave to appeal as an interested party. He further observed that the appellants’ brief was settled by someone who is not a legal practitioner. Concluding he submitted that the appellants brief and the Notice of Appeal are incompetent, and the appeal ought to be struck out. Urging the court to dismiss the Preliminary objection, learned counsel for the appellants argued that by the provisions of Order 6 Rule 5(b) of the Rules of this court, the brief and Notice of Appeal may be settled by counsel, contending that the provision supra accommodates a situation where the appellant can prepare both documents.

An appeal is a review of the decision of the court below by a higher court. The purpose being to see if the court below considered the facts properly and arrived at the correct decision. By the provisions of Section 243(a) of the Constitution it is a party in a suit or an interested party that can appeal against a judgment of the court, See

In Re: Arowolo 1993 2 NWLR pt.275 pg.1

Ogunbiyi v. Mustapha 1996 4 NWLR pt. 442 pg. 337