Look Engine Parts Limited & Ors V. Ecobank Nigeria Plc & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.(Delivering The Leading Judgment)

The Appellants herein lodged this appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court Lagos, presided over by the Honourable Juctice B. I. Molokwu sitting at Lagos (the court below) in Suit No.FHC/L/CS/1343/2009.

See pages 166 – 174 of the Records of Appeal for copy of judgment.

Upon the grant of leave by the court below in accordance with the requirement of the Fundamental Right [Enforcement Procedurel Rules 1979, the Applicants (Appellants herein) filed an application by way of a Motion on Notice dated the 17th of December, 2009 under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 praying for reliefs in the following terms:

(i) A DECLARATION that the decisions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to arrest and detain the 2nd and 3rd Applicants and the servants or workers of the 1st Applicants at the request of or on the promptings of the 1st Respondent by reason of the failure of the Applicants to liquidate the outstanding credit facilities granted to the 1st and 2nd Applicants by the 1st Respondents in respect of which credit facilities, the Applicants had deposited substantial collateral security are unconstitutional, illegal and constitute grave violation of the constitutional rights of the Applicants to personal liberty and human dignity guaranteed by sections 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Articles 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 2004.

(ii) A DECLARATION that the threat or decision of the 1st Respondent to sell the 3rd Applicant’s landed property situated at Olooja Street, Bariga Lagos and covered by the Certificate of Occupancy No.47/47/2003m dated the 1st day of July, 2003 which Certificate of Occupancy had been deposited with the 1st Respondent by way of collateral security of the credit facilities granted to the 1st Applicant’s by the 1st Respondent without fulfilling all conditions precedent constitutes illegal or wrongful violation of the 3rd Applicant’s right to own immovable property guaranteed by Sections 34 and 43 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

(iii) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, their agents, officers or any other person acting pursuant to their instruction or directive from:

(a) Arresting and detaining the 2nd and 3rd Applicants over the 1st Applicant’s indebtedness to the 1st Respondent

(b) Arresting and detaining any officer or worker of the 1st Applicant over or on account of the 1st Applicants indebtedness to the 1st Respondent.

(iv) AN ORDER of injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents, servants or any other person acting pursuant to its directive or instruction from selling the 3rd Applicant’s landed property situated at Olooja Street Bariga, Lagos and covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 47/47/2003m dated the 1st day of July, 2003 which Certificate of Occupancy had been deposited with the 1st Respondent as collateral security of the credit facilities granted to the 1st Applicant by the 1st Respondent.

(v) N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) damages.

By a 23 paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by Mr. Eroje Ohio on the 22nd of January 2010 and another 13 paragraph further counter-affidavit deposed to on 22nd day of June 2010, the 1st Respondent denied all the averments in the affidavit attached to the Applicants’ application of 17th December, 2009.

The 23 paragraphs counter-affidavit of Eroje Ohio and the 13 paragraphs further counter-affidavit are respectively at pages 66-69 and 149 – 150 of Records of Appeal.

The 3rd Respondent, in the same vein also filed a 14 paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Emmanuel Dawudu, said to be an Assistant Superintendent of Police attached to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the 25th of January, 2010 challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.