Rebold Industries Limited V Magreola Ladipo & Co (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A. JP

On the 26th day of November, 1998, the Appellant filed a motion before the Lagos State High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the grounds of the none locus standi of the Respondent. The High Court Coram A.R.A Salid J dismissed the motion in a Ruling pronounced on the 21st day of February 2000. Aggrieved by the said Ruling, the Appellant filed this appeal on the 23rd day of February 2000. Additional grounds of Appeal were filed on the 14th day of May 2002 with the leave of this court. A total of three grounds of appeal were filed.

The brief facts of the case which metaphase into this appeal are recounted anon; – sometimes in 1995, the services of the Respondent as a firm of Solicitors, were retained by the Mandilas Group Limited for the preparation and engrossment of a deed of sublease between the Mandilas Group Limited and Rebold Industries Limited (being the Appellants). The sublease was in respect of the property known and situate at 7A Creek Road, Apapa, Lagos.

It was a term of the said agreement that the Appellant would be responsible for the fees legal incurred in preparing the Deed of Lease. The Appellant failed to make good the said terms of the agreement.

On the 14th day of May 1997, the Respondent took out a writ of summons endorsed with the statement of claim against the Appellant for the recovery of the said fees incurred in the preparation and engrossment of the deed.

The Appellant having failed to respond to the summons of the Respondent, a default Judgment was entered for the Respondent on the 19th day of June 1998.

The Appellant has come before this Court urging us to set aside the decision of the trial Court and strike out the suit of the Respondent. These reliefs are premised on the reasons that: –

(1) The Respondent not being a party to the agreement cannot enforce or purport to enforce same;

(2) That the decision in Shuwa case relied upon by the trial Court was obiter and by the principle of stare decision, cannot stand in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ikpeazu’s case;

(3) That the decision in Shuwa’s case relied upon by the trial Court;

(4) That the Appellant’s case being challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court in the line with the case of NDIC v CBN, the Appellant need not have filed a statement of defense before raising the issue of jurisdiction.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

The learned Counsel for the Respondent appearing in person raised a preliminary objection which was incorporated in his brief of argument. Two grounds of objection were cited to wit:-

(1) That ground one of the grounds of appeal is incompetent, because there was no such finding by the trial Court. The said ground is reproduced