Suburban Broadband Limited Nigeria V. Intelsat Global Sales And Marketing Limited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondent by a petition dated and filed on 13/12/2010 prayed the Federal High Court Abuja Judicial Division (“the trial Court” for short) in Suit No FHC/ABJ/PET/12/2010 to wind up the appellant for its inability to liquidate its accrued debts to the respondent. The Petition was supported by an affidavit and a verifying affidavit.

The appellant in response, filed a notice of intention to appear under protest and a motion on notice praying for’ inter alia’ an order dismissing or striking out the petition for lack of jurisdiction and/or for being incompetent based on the following grounds.

?(i) There is no competent Affidavit in Support of and for Affidavit verifying the petition.

(ii) This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

(iii) There was no valid demand for the payment of the alleged debt before the commencement of this action;

(iv) The Petitioner is not a corporate body registered in Nigeria or elsewhere. Accordingly, it has no right to sue or be sued in this Court. In other words, the petitioner is incompetent

1

or in the alternative.

(v) The Petition was not duly authorized by the Petitioner’s Board of Directors or Shareholders;

(vi) The Petition is by the reasons foregoing or otherwise incompetent and this Honourable Court deprived of the jurisdiction to entertain same.”

The motion was supported by a 16 – paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Uzoamaka Obudike, Company Secretary/Head of Legal Services Department of the appellant and a written address. The respondent in turn filed a counter-affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Abdulhameed Abdulkadu, a Legal practitioner in the law firm representing the respondent with Exhibit A attached and a written address.

After hearing the motion, the total Court dismissed the preliminary objection but reserved ground (v), namely; that the petition was not duly authorised by the Petitioner’s Board of Directors or Shareholders, for determination at the hearing of the Petition. It is against that ruling that the appellant has appealed to this Court on a notice of appeal containing 5 grounds of appeal.

?Pursuant to the rules of this Court, the appellant filed;