Minaj Holdings Limited V. Asset Management Corporation Of Nigeria (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division delivered by C. J. Aneke J. on the 11th of December, 2013. The Plaintiff, now Respondent in this appeal, on the 14th of December, 2012 filed an Originating Summons, supported by an Affidavit dated 14th of December, 2012, against the Defendant, now Appellant who on its own part filed a Counter-Affidavit and written address dated 11th of January, 2013 at the Court below.

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties in this case. The Appellant was a customer of Union Bank Plc. It borrowed from the said Bank the total sum of N8,935,824,268.66 (Eight Billion, Nine Hundred and Thirty Five Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira, Sixty-Six Kobo) and was unable to pay. This loan formed part of a series of loans purchased from Union Bank Plc by the Respondent under the AMCON ACT.

The Respondent restructured the loan from N8,935,824,268.66 (Eight Billion, Nine Hundred and Thirty Five Million, Eight Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira, Sixty-Six Kobo) to N2,099,225,000.00 (Two Billion, Ninety Nine Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Million Naira) by a letter of offer dated 15th of June, 2012 (Exhibit M2 attached to the affidavit in support of the Respondent Originating Summons). When the Appellant was still unable to pay the restructured amount the Respondent commenced this action at the Court below.

It is the case of the Appellant that he did not accept the offer letter and that the value of his properties contained in the offer letter is incorrect.

The lower court agreed with the case of the Respondent and awarded judgment in favour of the Respondent as per its Originating Summons, hence this appeal. The Judgment of the lower Court is dated 11th of December, 2013 and can be found at page 661-682 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellant filed 3 (three) Notices of Appeal, which are as follows:

1. Notice of Appeal filed 16th of December, 2013;
2. Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 4th of February, 2014 and;
3. Further Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 27th of February, 2014.

Appellant relied on the Further Amended Notice of Appeal in arguing this appeal. The Further Amended Notice of Appeal contained three grounds of appeal. According to the rules of court, parties filed their briefs of argument. The Appellant filed its brief of argument on 7th of March, 2014 while the Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 11th of April, 2014. The Appellant’s reply brief was filed on the 24th of April, 2014. From these grounds of appeal, the appellant have distilled the following two (2) issues for determination by this Court viz:-

1. Whether the court below accurately and correctly evaluated and summed up the total value of all the identified assets of the Appellant in the hands of the Respondent, when it considered the second issue for determination as formulated by that court?- (Grounds 1 and 2 of the further Amended Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether the imposed interest element should be part of the judgment debt not having been properly pleaded and proved and also, as the value of all the assets of the Appellant with the Respondent were more than sufficient to fully liquidate the debt at the due date, (Ground 3 of the further Amended Notice of Appeal).

The Respondent for his own part raised a preliminary objection as to the competency of this appeal and in the alternative adopted the issues as formulated by the Appellant in case the preliminary objection is overruled.

Before going into the issues for determination in this appeal, it is important to first deal with the objection raised by the Respondent in this appeal.

The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that this appeal is incompetent on the grounds that the Notice of appeal was amended twice without leave of court and also that the Appeal was argued on the further amended notice of appeal which was not amended by leave of the Court of Appeal. He relied on Order 6 Rule 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 which provides as follows:

“A notice of appeal may be amended by or with the leave of the Court at any time.”

Counsel also relied on the case of Ogembe v. Usman (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 638. Counsel, therefore, urged the Court to strike out the appeal as the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the appeal based on the above mentioned grounds.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant on the other hand submitted that it is trite that an appellant can file as many Notices of Appeal as it deems fit provided that it is within the time allowed for the appeal. Counsel relied on Section 24(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and the Supreme Court case of Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 39. This appeal being an appeal as of right, the three notices were all filed within three months of the final judgment of the court below. Counsel further relied on the case of Fortune Int’l Plc v. City Exp. Bank Ltd (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1319) 86 @ 109. He thus urged the Court to overrule the Notice of preliminary objection.