Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation & Ors v. Owners of M.T. Venturer (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

TEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, on July 19, 2013, in appeal No: CA/L/679/2009.

In its decision, the lower court upheld the appeal of the respondent and set aside the ruling of the trial Federal High Court, Lagos Division in suit No: FHC/L/CS/1405/98, which was delivered on 5th November, 2003.

At the trial court, the respondent in this appeal claimed as plaintiff against the appellants in this appeal who were the defendants jointly and/or severally the sum of US$886,616.42 (Eight Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Six hundred and Sixteen US Dollars, Forty Two Cents) together with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date the action was instituted till judgment and payment and the cost of action.

The appellants filed a statement of defence and by their notice of preliminary objection, the appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the respondent’s suit on the main ground that the action was statute barred.

The respondent did not file any counter-affidavit and both parties did not argue the said appellants’ notice of preliminary objection but the learned trial Chief Judge, sequel to the demand of the plaintiff for the trial court to wait for the decision of Justice Sanyaolu J., in a sister case in suit No: FHC/L/CS/292/98 to decide the said notice of preliminary objection. Accordingly, in a ruling delivered on 05/11/03, the trial Chief Judge dismissed the respondent’s suit as being statute-barred following the decision of Sanyolu, J.

The respondent being dissatisfied with the ruling aforesaid, filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal dated 21/11/03. The Court of Appeal delivered judgment in favour of the respondent on 19th July, 2013. The appellants being dissatisfied with the said judgment filed a notice of appeal against that judgment on the 11th October, 2013. The lower court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.

The appellants, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, has now appealed to this court via an amended notice of appeal filed on the 7th November, 2024, but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th December, 2024.

The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this court. Counsel for both parties submitted and exchanged written arguments on behalf of their clients.

On the 10th day of December, 2024, when this appeal came up for hearing, counsel for the respondent, withdrew his preliminary objection earlier raised in this matter, same was struck out.

Counsel for the appellants, N.J. Inyang Esq., in his brief filed on 7th November, 2024, but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th December, 2024, formulated four (4) issues for the determination of this appeal.

These issues are:

1. Whether in the absence of an appeal against the specific finding and holding by the learned trial Chief Judge dated 5th November, 2003, that in the proceedings of 16th January, 2001, the respondent had elected to be bound by the decision of Sanyaolu J., the Court of Appeal was right to have reviewed and subsequently overruled the said specific finding and holding of the learned trial Chief Judge. (Grounds 4 and 5 of the amended notice of appeal).
2. Whether in the absence of an appeal against the ruling of the learned trial Chief Judge dated 16th November, 2001, that in the determination of the appellant’s notice of preliminary objection, the parties will be bound by the decision of Sanyaolu, J., in a similar application in a sister case the same did not constitute an issue estoppel. (Ground 3).
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have allowed the respondent’s appeal thereby allowing the respondent to approbate and reprobate on the procedure adopted by it in the prosecution of its case. (Grounds 1 and 2).
4. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the proceedings of 5th November, 2003, was in breach of the respondent’s right to fair hearing. (Grounds 6, 7 and 8).

The learned counsel for the respondent, Obatayo Aina, Esq., in response, adopted the four (4) issues as formulated by the appellants in the amended respondent’s brief of argument filed on the 6th December, 2024, but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th day of December, 2024.

Counsel for the appellants filed a reply brief on the 21st November, 2024, same was deemed properly filed and served on the 10th December, 2024.