Hassan Abdulrahman & Anor. V. Emmanuel Oyamendan & Anor. (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALAGOA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Hobon J. of the Federal High Court Kano Division, which was delivered on the 30th April, 2001. The facts leading to this appeal as can be gleaned from the printed record and the briefs of the parties are briefly set out hereunder as follows. The present respondents as plaintiffs in the court below took out a writ of civil summons against the appellants, then defendants, on the 4th January, 1999, the particulars of claim of which are reproduced below:

Particulars of Claim

“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants are as follows:

1. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s-seizure of the 1st plaintiff’s Mercedes Benz car in the purported exercise of the 1st defendant’s powers as receiver of the 2nd defendant is illegal, null and an abuse of his power.
2. An order of the court directing the defendants to return the 1st plaintiff’s Mercedes Benz 230 series car with registration No. K 4994, which was unlawfully and forcefully taken from the 1st plaintiff and his driver by the defendants at the premises of Tan Arewa Nigeria Limited Sharada on 9/1/99.
3. An order directing the defendant to return to the plaintiff’s the sum of N720,000.00 (Seven hundred and twenty thousand Naira) meant for the purchase of spare parts for the repair of Caterpillar Bulldozer and Scraper contained in the above mentioned car, which is still being unlawfully detained in Tan Arewa (Nigeria) Ltd. Premises Sharada Phase 1, Kano.
4. The sum of N3,000.00 (Three thousand Naira) per day, being expended daily by the plaintiffs as taxi fare since the illegal seizure and detention of their car.
5. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two million Naira) compensation for inconveniences, hardship and loss of business suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of illegal action.
6. A declaration that the contract of service between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant Tan Arewa (Nigeria) Limited is still subsisting.
7. The sum of N100,000 (One hundred thousand Naira) special damages for the amount of work already carried out by the plaintiffs.
8. The sum of N500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand Naira) general damages for breach of contract.”

Pleadings were thereafter filed, the respondents then plaintiffs filing their statement of claim dated 18th March, 1999, same day, while the appellants then defendants with leave of court following an application for extension of time to do so, filed their statement of defence dated 11th August, 1999, on the 12th August, 1999, thereby joining issues with the present respondents. However, the appellants by a motion on notice dated the 25th September, 2000, and filed on the 13th October, 2000, prayed the lower court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. Paragraph 3(a)-(d) of the affidavit in support to this motion are instructive and quite germane to this discourse and reads as follows-

“3(a) That pleadings in this suit have long been exchanged and the suit already fixed for hearing.

(b) That on a thorough and further perusal of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, it is evident that the plaintiffs seek for declaratory orders in respect of same alleged actions of the 1st defendant as a receiver.

(c) The plaintiffs also claim for special and general damages for inconveniences for the purported or rather the alleged acts of the receiver.

(d) That as a matter of fact the plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of the jurisdiction of this court.”

The respondents reacted by filing a counter affidavit deposed to on the 10th November, 2000. Paragraph 4(a) – (e) are pertinent and reads as follows-

“(a) That the 1st respondent is the receiver/manager over the 2nd defendant’s floating assets.

(b) That in the bid to recover the alleged N304,000 as receiver of the 2nd defendant from the plaintiffs, he seized the 1st plaintiff’s Mercedes Benz car with registration No. 4994 with the sum of N720,000 therein.

(c) That the act of the 1st defendant above was carried out by him in the exercise of his power and function as a receiver/manager of the 2nd defendant.

(d) That the reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs in their statement of claim arose from the act of the 1st defendant as receiver/manager in paragraph 4(b) hereof.