Nigeria Airways Ltd. (Inliquidation) & Ors. V. Haruna Mohammed Mahdi (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court of Justice, Kano, delivered on 6th day of June, 2007 by Adeniyi F. A. Ademola J.

The summary of the facts that gave rise to this appeal was that the appellants filed an Originating Motion before the lower Court in which they sought for an order directing the defendant (hereinafter called the Respondent) to deliver possession of the premises situate at No.6 Lafiya Road, Kano and to give an inventory of all the property belonging to the 1st appellant that were under his control and custody to the 2nd and 4th Appellants.

The Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the said Originating Motion. Consequently, the lower Court upheld the said preliminary objection and accordingly struck out the application. The lower Court equally ordered that Appellants’ action be transferred to the High Court of Justice, Kano State.

Vexed by the said ruling, the Appellants appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal containing 3 grounds of appeal.

The Appellants had in accordance with the relevant rules of this Court duly filed their brief of argument and at the hearing of the appeal the Appellants adopted and relied on their brief of argument.

The Respondent did not file his brief of argument.

The Appellants’ brief of argument dated 3/3/2008 and filed on 4/3/2008 was settled by Mustapha Bulama Esq.

In the Appellants’ brief of argument, 2 issues for determination were raised to wit:

1. Was the reliefs claimed by the Appellants “contractual in nature” and outside the provisions of Section 251 of the 1999 constitution having regards to the provisions of section 440 of the companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 and Rule 62 of the winding up Rules 2001. Ground one.
2. Whether the liquidator and the Company require leave of the lower trial Court before commencing an action in their names. Ground two”.

In the consideration of this appeal, I shall adopt the 1st issue for determination formulated by the Appellants.

On the said sole issue, learned counsel to the Appellants opined that the lower Court erred in law when it struck out the action that was filed by the Appellants for lack of jurisdiction.

Learned counsel contended that the lower Court ought to have entertained the Appellants’ action as the substratum of the said action revolved around the regulation and management of a Company which are matters which squarely and exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Learned counsel to the Appellants referred the Court to the provisions of sections 440 and 650 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, section 62 of the Winding Up Rules 2001, paragraphs 5 – 9 of the affidavit in support of the originating motion and the cases of Yalaju Amayu v. A.R.E.C. Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (pt. 145) 441 – 442 and Onura v. Kaduna R.P.C Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (pt. 921) 393.

In conclusion, learned counsel to the Appellants urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.