Kerian Ikpara Obasi V. Mikson Establishment Industries Ltd. (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Kano State High Court of Justice delivered on 16-7-1999 in suit No. K/M/137/99.

The respondent in this appeal was a judgment creditor in a judgment it obtained in a court at Maradi in Niger Republic in Trial No. 45/98 against the appellant who was the Defendant in that court. By an application Ex-Parte, the respondent had applied before the court below for an order under section 10 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act CAP 152 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, to register the foreign judgment in that court for the purpose of execution in Nigeria. After hearing the application, the court below on being satisfied that the application met the requirements of the law for the purpose of being registered granted the same. The relevant part of this ruling state:-

“I want to say that I agree with the submissions of Mr. Igwe learned counsel to the applicant that all the requirements of law had been fulfilled by the applicant to get the judgment registered as to judgment of this court. Consequently therefore I found merit in the application and I made the following order:

1. That a judgment delivered in Niger Republic against the judgment debtor/Respondent known and called KIRIAN IKPARA ABASI who is now resident here in Kano within the jurisdiction of this court in suit NO. TRIAL 45/98 is hereby registered as the judgment of this court.
2. The said judgment should be enforced as the judgment of this court.”

Consequent upon the above order registering the foreign judgment against the appellant which was made on 29 – 6 – 99, the foreign judgment was duly registered as a judgment of the Kano State High Court and an order of that court was made for its enforcement. Execution was accordingly levied against the moveable properties of the appellant herein who was the judgment debtor.

The appellant who was not happy with the steps taken to enforce the foreign judgment against him brought a motion before the lower court for a number of reliefs. The motion on notice dated 2 – 7 – 99 sought for the following orders-

“To set aside the registration of the foreign judgment between the above named parties as shown above.

To set aside the execution carried” out on 29/6/99 and 1/7/99 against the above named judgment Debtor/Applicant and seizing his moveable personal properties including any other Execution which the registered court may carry out after the filing of this Motion on Notice.

An order compelling the bailiffs of the registering court to release forthwith all moveable properties of the named judgment Debtor applicant to him.”

After hearing the parties on this motion the lower court in its ruling delivered on 16 – 7 – 99 dismissed the application to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment and made the following order-

“That it is hereby ordered that the name of the plaintiff being described as MIKSON ESTABLISHMENT INDUSTRIES LTD in the Motion paper dated 28th June 1998 be Substituted with the name MIKSON INDUSTRIES LTD as the proper and authentic name of the plaintiff as contained in the foreign judgment registered by this court on 29 – 6 – 99.”

Not satisfied with the ruling of the lower court of 16 – 7 – 99 and in particular with the above order correcting the name of the Respondent judgment creditor on the motion paper, the defendant/judgment debtor now appellant had appealed to this court. The appellant filed 4 grounds of appeal to challenge the ruling and order of the lower court. From these 4 grounds of appeal the following 2 issues for the determination of the appeal were distilled in the appellant’s brief of argument. The issues are-

“(i) Whether the registering court can suo motu under the guise of doing substantial justice, make an order amending or correcting the names of the parties (especially that of the plaintiff or applicant) by substituting the name of a known or an existing person for that of unknown or non-existing person and vice versa without any application from the party in error.

(ii) Whether the failure of the Registering court to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment did not amount to a violation of the provision of s.6 (1) (a) (vi) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Cap 152 Laws of the federation of Nigeria 1990, to warrant the judicial intervention of this court.”