Unity Bank PLC V. Sokoto Rima And Rural Development Authority & Anor (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLAADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Kano State High Court delivered on 22/07/2002 by Hon. Justice A.M Haliru (of blessed memory), wherein the Appellant’s Motion to set aside the attachment and auction sale notice of the properties of the 2nd Respondent mortgaged to the Appellant under a Deed of Mortgage Debenture, was dismissed.

The Appellant, dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Court, filed a Notice of Appeal on 23/7/2002, containing three grounds. The 1st Respondent, dissatisfied with the assumption of jurisdiction by the lower Court to entertain the application, cross appealed, raising, by its Amended Notice of cross Appeal filed on 31/10 /13, one ground of appeal.

Briefs of Argument were filed in respect of the various appeals. By its Amended Appellant’s Brief of Argument of 17/3/15 and settled by Felix Jones Osimerha, a sole issue for determination was raised, namely:

Whether or not the lower Court was not in error in the circumstances of this case in its interpretation of the Terms of the Registered Deed of Floating Debenture created

1

between the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant charging its movable assets to the Appellant to secure credit facilities obtained and in dismissing the Appellant’s Interpleader’s claim.

The 1st Respondent, by its Amended 1st Respondent’s Brief filed on 30/4/13 and settled by S.A. Nasir, formulated, similarly, a sole issue for determination, to wit:

Was the lower Court in error when it dismissed the claim of the appellant under the floating debenture and whether that has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

In response, the Appellant filed an Amended Appellant’s Reply Brief on 17 /3/15.

In prosecution of the Cross Appeal, the Respondent, who shall continue to be referred to as ‘the Respondent’, by its Amended Cross Appellant’s Brief of Arguments filed on 31/10 /13 formulated a single issue for determination, to wit:

Was the Court below correct to entertain the 1st Respondent’s application having regard to the provisions of Section 251(1) (e) and (j) of the 1999 Constitution as well as the provisions of clause 8 of the floating debenture Exhibit b-b4?

The 1st Cross Respondent, who shall continue to be referred to

2