United Bank For Africa PLC V. Kidoc (West Africa) Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Lagos State High Court, sitting in the Lagos Division delivered on the 4th October, 2002 Oyefeso J, in suit No: LD/1189/2001.

The Respondents in this appeal as Plaintiffs at the lower Court filed Suit No. ID/1148A/2000 against the Appellant as Defendant. While the suit was still pending, the Appellant filed a separate suit, Suit No. ID/1189/2001 before the Lagos State High Court against the Respondents in respect of the same facility which was the subject matter of litigation in the pending suit ID/1148A/2000.

The Respondent filed a Motion on Notice dated the 20th May, 2002 wherein he sought for an order of the lower Court to strike out/dismiss the suit for being an abuse of the process of Court, the said motion is at pages 105-107 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellant filed a Counter-affidavit to the motion dated 20th May, 2002/5, the counter affidavit was filed on the 27th day of May, 2002 and is found at pages 121-123 of the Record of appeal. The lower Court in its ruling contained at pages 144-152 of the Record of appeal, struck out the

1

suit as prayed by the Respondents.

The Appellant became aggrieved and therefore filed a Notice of Appeal on the 8th day of March, 2005. The Notice of appeal containing four grounds of appeal is found at pages 154-158 of the record of appeal. Appellant’s four grounds of appeal less their respective particulars are set out as follows:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held at page 8 of the ruling dated 4th October, 2002 that, ?Suit No. ID/1148A/2000 as well as the instant suit clearly have as their main focus the same facility and the same security, in other words, the subject matter of both suits is the same? and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held at page 8 of the ruling dated 4th October, 2002 that; ?what would happen in a situation if the Court in Suit No. ID/1148A/2000 finds that the Plaintiff therein (the company) is discharged from the loan agreement subject matter of both Suits and this Court finds that the same company, Defendant herein, liable to pay the same loan. It would indeed be a situation of confusion and

2

embarrassment? and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

3. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held at page 8 of the ruling dated 4th October, 2002 that, ?the issues raised in the instant Suit can properly be raised in a Counter Claim in Suit No. ID/1148A/2000? and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held at page 8 of the ruling dated 4th October, 2002 that, ?I have reviewed carefully the submissions of learned counsel, all the processes filed and thereby hold that the instant suit is an abuse of the Court process? and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed by learned Counsel T. E. Opara Mrs. of Messrs. Rickey Tarfa and Co. on the 14th day of January, 2011, the brief was deemed as properly filed and served on the 25th day of February, 2013. The Appellant also filed a reply brief on the 11th day of March 2013 through the same learned Counsel. The Respondents on the other hand filed Respondents’ brief of argument on the 18th day of February, 2013 but deemed as

3

properly filed and served on the 25th day of February, 2013. Learned Counsel Lovely Iyke Erhabor, Esq. filed the Respondents’ brief of argument. The relevant processes for the purpose of this appeal are therefore, the Appellant’s Notice of appeal filed on the 8th day of March, 2005, Appellant’s brief and reply, and the Respondents’ brief of argument.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant crafted two issues for determination from the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, the issues are reproduced as follows:

1. Whether same loan agreement subject and same parties in suits SUIT NO. LD/118/01 STANDARD TRUST BANK LTD v. KIDOC (WEST AFRICAN) LTD & ANOR and SUIT NO. ID/1148A/00 KIDOC (WEST AFRICAN) LTD v. STANDARD TRUST BANK & ANOR amount to abuse of Court processes? (Grounds 1, 3 & 4).
2. Whether the trial Court was right to strike out the Appellant as Plaintiffs suit based on speculation on the outcome of the SUIT NO.ID/1148A/00 KIDOC (WEST AFRICAN) LTD v. STANDARD TRUST BANK & ANOR? (Ground 2).

On the part of the Respondents, learned Counsel just nominated one issue for determination on behalf of the Respondents, the issue is reproduced as