John Okeze V. Nigerian Stock Brokers Limited & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A.

Briefly the plaintiff/appellant at the lower court had claimed in his writ of summons against the defendants/respondents jointly and severally the release to him of 1,000 units of Guinness Nigeria Limited, the stocks sold to him, the plaintiff, by the 1st defendant/respondent on 23rd October, 1969 for the sum of E1,284. 10s. 4d against the plaintiff/appellant’s cheque No.364566/172662 of 21st October, 1969 together with all dividends due thereon from 23rd October, 1969. In the alternative, the plaintiff/appellant claimed the sum of Pound 1,284. 10s. 4d from the said defendants/respondents jointly and severally, being money had and received for a consideration which had failed plus interest on the said amount at 21% per annum from 23:10:69 until judgment and thereafter, at 9% until the total judgment debt and costs have been liquidated.

The plaintiff/appellant claimed that the 1st respondent is a limited liability company engaged in Brokerage business, dealing in company shares and stocks while the 2nd respondent is a public liability company engaged in the business of brewery. That the 1st respondent was the agent of the 2nd respondent in respect of the sale of its stock and issuance of share certificates.

By a Notice of preliminary objection dated 4th April, 2001, the 1st defendant/respondent sought a dismissal of the suit on the following two grounds:-

(a) That the plaintiffs claim was statute barred as the cause of action arose in 1969 and

(b) The subject matter of the suit by virtue of section 251(e) of the 1999 Constitution was outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State.

By its ruling delivered on the 3rd May, 2002, the learned trial judge saw the dispute as having arisen from the operation of the Companies & Allied Matters Act and held thus:-

“The issue of stocks, share certificates and dividends can be said to be matters that spring from or arise out of the operations of the Companies & Allied Matters Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain same……….

Assuming for the purpose of argument that this court has jurisdiction, is this action statute barred for being commenced 31 years after the event complained of?”

The court in response to the question raised concluded and held further and said:-

“The plaintiff had ample opportunity to institute this action against the defendants several years ago and chosen to do nothing. It cannot be in the interest of justice for an aggrieved party to institute an action 31 years after the cause of actionn arose……………..

I have carefully considered the writ of summons, statement of claim, the notice of preliminary objection, and the written submissions of learned counsel and hold that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit since it falls within those matters exclusively reserved for the Federal High Court. Assuming however, that the court does have jurisdiction, this action will also fail as it is statute barred. The application is dismissed and the suit is hereby struck out.”

Consequent to the courts decision, the plaintiff/appellant was very dissatisfied, and therefore filed notice of appeal containing two grounds which same reproduced without the particulars read as follows:-

“Ground One