Flourmills Of Nigeria PLC & Anor V. Nigeria Customs Service Board & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, Coram Judice Buba, J., delivered on the 5th day of March, 2013. The chafed judgment is at pages 324-347 of the Records.

At the prosecution of the case at the Lower Court, there was a claim by the Appellant and a counterclaim by the 3rd Respondent. The Appellants claimed the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that the Plaintiff/Claimant is the bona fide owner of the movable property known and referred to as Iveco Eurostar Truck Reg. No. XZ 853 KJA with the inscription Golden transport Company Limited.

ii. A declaration the 1st Defendant is obliged to release the said truck to the Plaintiff upon the officers of the 1st Defendant discovering in consequence of its investigation that the Plaintiff/Claimant is not culpable, by not being the owner and not having any proprietary interest in and dealing in the items found/loaded unto the said truck by its driver, who did the same for his personal gain, in consequence of which the 1st Defendant in exercise of its statutory functions under the Custom & Excise Management Act impounded the said truck at its sentry in Ikeja, Lagos.

iii. A declaration that by not having any proprietary interest in the items found on the said truck and the Plaintiff having not been convicted for an offence in pursuance thereto the Plaintiff is not liable to forfeit the said truck in pursuance of the provisions of Section 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

iv. A declaration that the purported surreptitious transfer of the Plaintiffs title in the said truck on the fifth day of its being impounded either by sale, auction or any form of disposition of the same to the 2nd Defendant and subsequently to the 3rd Defendant by any of its officers or any one acting on or in that behalf or under the directive of the 1st Defendant is null and void and contrary to the provisions of Section 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

v. A Declaration that upon the appearance before the officers of the 1st Defendant at its Ikeja Sentry and the subsequent correspondence of the Plaintiffs Chief Security Manager and its Solicitors and the steps taken thereby at effecting the recovery of the said truck the 1st Defendant is estopped by law from disposing the Plaintiffs property.

vi. An order of Court rescinding/setting aside the said sale.

vii. An Order of Court directing the 1st Defendant to direct its officers to cause the release/return of the said truck to the Plaintiff forthwith upon entry of an acceptance bond thereof.

viii. N1, 000,000 damages for the wrongful sale.

ix. A Declaration that subject to the proviso contained in Section 44(2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 the 2nd Defendant or any one acting on his behalf is not entitled to dispose of the Plaintiffs property.

(See pages 9-10 of the Records)

The 3rd Respondent counterclaimed claiming for: