Cross Country Limited V. A. G. Moeller Limited (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.(Delivering the Lead Ruling)

The Appellant /Applicant filed two applications; the first application is brought pursuant to Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, Order 4 rules 1, 6, 10 and 11, and Order 7 rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Appellant/Applicant is praying for:

1. AN ORDER suspending and or vacating the interim order of the Federal High Court Lagos, per Honorable Justice A. M. Liman made on 17th March 2011 in suit No FHC/L/CP/307/2011 between AG MOELLER LIMITED VS CROSS COUNTRY LIMITED pending the hearing and determination of the appeal dated and filed on the 29th June, 2011 by the Appellant/ Applicant herein;
2. AND FOR SUCH Order or further orders as this Honorable Court shall deem fit to make in the circumstance of this application.

The Applicant gave grounds for the application as follows:

A. The Appellant/Applicant has filed a Notice of Appeal on the 19th of June, 2011 against the ruling of the Honorable Justice J. T. Tsoho, refusing to take the Appellant/applicants motion to discharge the interim order earlier made by Honorable Justice A. M. Liman on the 17th March 2011 (in the suit of the instant appeal) in priority to the Respondents application for contempt proceedings and interlocutory injunction.

B. That the life span of the said Ex-parte Order, which under the Federal High Court Rules last 14 days has been extended to one year and 3 days as at the material time of filing this application.

C. That the said appeal which raises substantial and recondite issues of law was entered in this Honorable Court on or about the 5th of September 2011.

D. That the Appellant /Applicant is likely to be completely paralyzed and wound up if the ex-parte order is not suspended or vacated before the hearing of the appeal,

E. That the Appellant/Applicant whose business has been paralyzed or disrupted cannot be compensated if the interim order is not suspended or vacated,

F. That the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the Appellant/Applicant.

G. If this application is not granted, the interim order of 17th March 2011 would have the effect of giving full effect, albeit without hearing the Appellant/Applicant to the petition for winding up, which is still pending at the Lower Court contrary to their constitutional right of fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

H. The scope of the interim order goes beyond the scope of the subject matter of the petition.

I. The appellant /applicant would suffer irreparable damage if this application is not granted.

J. The interim orders are not meant to last for a long period.

K. That it is in the interest of Justice and equity that the application is granted.