Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Slb Consortium Limited & Ors (2014)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL
MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling)
By this motion on notice dated 24/05/2012 and filed on the same date, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
“1. An Order extending the time within which the applicant may seek leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts and/or simply facts against the decision of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court coram Honourable Justices Idris Auta (hereinafter referred to as “the Court below”) in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/921/2011 (SLB Consortium Limited v. Chief Registrar, Federal High Court & 2 Ors) delivered on 24th January 2012,
- An Order extending time within which the applicant may appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts and/or simply facts against the decision of the Court below in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/921/2011 (SLB Consortium Limited v. Chief Registrar, Federal High Court & 2 Ors) delivered on 24th January 2012.
- An Order granting leave to the applicant to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts and/or simply facts against the decision of the Court below in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/921/2011 (SLB Consortium Limited v. Chief Registrar, Federal High Court & 2 Ors) delivered on 24th January 2012.
The grounds for the application are:
“(i) On 24th January 2012, the applicant, by a motion on notice dated 23rd January 2012, raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court below to hear the 1st respondent’s originating summons in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/921/2011 on the ground that the suit constitutes an abuse of court process and comprises claims which have been subject of a decade of litigation and is presently statute-barred.
(ii) The said motion on notice of the applicant also sought an order setting aside the ex-parte order of the court below made as far back as 28th November 2011 and effectively preventing the applicant from accessing funds which the applicant is lawfully entitled to by virtue of a Supreme Court judgment to that effect.
(iii) However, the court below directed that the applicant’s motion on notice which raised the [1] issue of jurisdiction, [2] discharge of pending ex-parte orders and [3] abuse of court process shall be heard in conjunction with the 1st respondent’s substantive suit. In effect, the ex-parte order made on 28th November 2011 has been made to abide the determination of the substantive suit without hearing or granting any motion on notice by the 1st respondent to the effect. Despite the fact that the 1st respondent had such a pending motion on notice.
(iv) Being dissatisfied with this decision of the court below, the applicant filed an application on 30th January 2012, seeking leave of the court below to appeal to this honourable court on grounds of mixed law and facts and/or simply facts. Immediately thereafter, the applicant took steps to get a date for the hearing of the said application within 14 days from the delivery of the decision sought to be appealed against.
(v) However, the court below fixed the hearing of the said applicant’s application seeking leave to appeal for the 1st of March 2012. The 1st of March 2012 is not within the 14 days after the date of the decision of the court below sought to be appealed against, and as such, the jurisdiction of the court below to hear the said application became extinguished by operation of law on 1st February 2012.
(vi) The lapse of the jurisdiction of the court below to hear and determine the applicant’s application seeking leave to appeal within the stipulated period of 14 days has necessitated the instant application by virtue of Order 7 Rule 6 of the Rules of this honourable court.
(vii) Prior to the instant application, the applicant had previously filed a similar application to this honourable court on 8th February 2012 which was entered as CA/A/41/M/2012 and subsequently struck out by this honourable court on 23rd May 2012.
(viii) The applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal against the decision of the court below constitute substantial and recondite issues of mixed law and facts which are fundamental to the jurisdiction of the court below to hear this substantive suit of the 1st respondent”
The application is supported with an affidavit of 8 paragraphs and exhibits AU, AU2 and AU3.
The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit of 9 paragraphs in opposition to the motion.
Leave a Reply