Stallion Nigeria Limited & Ors. V. Economic & Financial Crimes Commission & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice S. J. Adah refusing to grant part of the Appellants’ (Applicants in the court below) relief for interlocutory injunction against the Respondents.

FACTS:

The Appellants herein as Plaintiffs/Applicants before the Lower Court commenced the action giving rise to this appeal on 9th September 2003 vide a writ of summons and Statement of Claim, seeking several declaratory reliefs:

Simultaneously with the writ of summons and statement of claim, the Appellants also filed before the lower court a Motion Ex-parte and a motion on Notice seeking injunctive reliefs against the 3rd Respondent herein. By another Motion on Notice filed on 2nd October 2003, the Appellant sought an amendment to the earlier Motion on Notice for orders of injunction.

On the 19th September 2003, the Lower Court took argument in respect of the Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction and on the 22nd September, 2003 the Lower Court delivered its ruling granting the Appellants’ prayers in part. The Lower Court refused that aspect of the Appellants’ prayer seeking injunction to restrain the 3rd Respondent from “…instigating the Central Bank of Nigeria from granting foreign exchange approvals for the plaintiffs’ lawful businesses..” on the ground that same was not related to any of the substantive claims before the Lower Court. The Appellants being dissatisfied with that aspect of the ruling have appealed to this court upon a Notice of Appeal containing five (5) grounds which, without the particulars are:-

1. The learned trial judge misconceived the plaintiffs’ claim and the uncontroverted evidence before the evidence before the court when he held that the interlocutory injunction sought by the appellant was ”generously couched to include both issues raised and those not raised” in the claim before the court thereby occasioning miscarriage of justice.
2. The learned trial judge erred in law and failed in exercise of his discretion properly by failing to advert his mind to the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s claim and the irreparable damage the plaintiffs would suffer by the failure of the Court to grant the relief jettisoned by the learned trial judge in its ruling.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law and failed to apply the relevant principles of law relating to interlocutory injunction when it jettisoned part of the reliefs and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned trial judge failed to exercise his discretion properly in not granting the reliefs jettisoned by the court on the uncontroverted evidence and the plaintiffs’ claim when the said reliefs were necessary and vital in order to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the final determination of the issues raised in the plaintiffs’ claim.
5. The learned trial judge erred in law in failing to grant the interlocutory injunction as claimed by the appellants when the effect of the order made will enable the Defendants to completely destroy the subject matter of the case and render the grant of the reliefs in the substantive suit nugatory.

The Reliefs sought are to allow the appeal and grant the interlocutory injunction as prayed. I would set out the reliefs in the substantive suit stated in the writ of summons and the statement of claim filed on 9th September, 2003 as follows:-

i) A DECLARATION that the powers conferred on the commission can only be exercised in respect of any act or omission that took place subsequent to 14th December 2002 when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2002 came into effect.

ii) A DECLARATION that the defendants acted in excess of their powers and ultra vires the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2002 by directing the Plaintiffs by letter of 25th August 2000 to furnish them with information on all contracts, obtained and executed by the group from January 1997 to June 2003 for the purposes of investigating the allegations of Economic and Financial Crimes against plaintiffs’ business, officers, and workers pursuant to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2002.

iii) AN ORDER of injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the demand contained in the letters dated 25th August, 2003.

iv) AN ORDER directing the 2nd defendant to refund the sum of N726,696,680.00 paid by the plaintiffs to the rd defendant in respect of the alleged order invoicing of the importation of rice and interest at the rate of 21% from the 10th June, 2003 till the said sum is fully liquidated.

At the hearing Mr. Ogunwumiju for the Appellants adopted the Appellants Brief filed on 1/11/05 wherein Appellants formulated a sole issue which is;

Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong to have circumscribed the reliefs sought by the Appellants in their Motion on Notice having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case.

The 1st Respondent was absent and not represented even though they were represented on 20/11/07 when the date for hearing was taken. They had not filed any Brief.