Value LINE Securities Investment Limited V. Obuboegbunam J. Anakwube (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the instance of the Respondent herein as plaintiff, a writ of summons was issued on 9/4/2002 commencing suit No 0/202/2002 in the Anambra State High Court in the Onitsha Judicial Division, against the Appellant herein as the Defendant.

Both parties filed and exchanged pleadings, namely, statement of claim and statement of defence. The Plaintiff testified as PW1 in support of his statement of claim and closed his evidence without the defence cross-examining him. Following attempts to settle the dispute, the case was in the presence of counsel to both sides and at the instance of the Plaintiff, adjourned to 21/7/2006 for Defence.

On that day, the Defendant and its Counsel were absent and sent a letter dated 17/7/2006 to the administrative judge of the Trial Court applying for the suit to be transferred from Court Room No 5 of the Trial Court to another Judge, on the basis of allegations of real likelihood of bias on the part of the learned Trial Judge trying the case. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff reacted to the said application thus:

“I have seen the letter from the Defendant. The case is for defence to open. The Defendants want to delay this case by this letter. I ask that the Defence’s case be closed and the matter be scheduled for judgment. This is because this case was fixed for judgment earlier. The Trial court ruled thus: “the case for the Defence is again closed. The case is fixed for judgment on the 26th of July, 2006. Hearing notice to be served on the Defendants.”

On the said 26/7/2006 the Defendant and its counsel were absent. The Trial court after finding that “there is a proof of service of the hearing notice on the Defendants”, entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff awarding N1,000,000 as damages and N10,000 as cost.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Defendant on 1/8/2006, commenced this Appeal No CA/E/382/2007 by filing a notice of appeal containing 2 grounds of appeal which were later amended. The amended notice of appeal filed on 1/12/2010 contains 3 grounds of appeal.

Both parties have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs of argument, namely, Appellant’s brief of argument and Respondent’s brief of argument. The Appellant’s brief of argument raised the following issues for determination of this appeal;

1. Whether the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain this suit
2. Whether the Trial Court was right when it awarded general damages of N1,000,000 in addition to the 13,488 units of shares already awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent in a claim predicated on breach of contract.

The Respondent’s brief of argument reproduced the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief of argument and thereby adopted them.

I will determine this appeal on the basis of the issues raised for determination of this appeal in the Appellant’s brief of argument.

I will start with issue number 1 which asks whether the Trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit leading to this Appeal.

Learned counsel for the Appellant has argued relying on the decision in Umanah vs Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1009) p.503 at 536, that it is the claim of the Plaintiff and the facts averred in the statement of claim that are considered in determining if a Court has the jurisdiction over a case. He submitted that from the reliefs sought by the Respondent in his statement of claim and the evidence of the Respondent, it is clear that the cause of action in this matter arose as a result of a dispute between the Appellant as a capital market operator and its client, the Respondent, over the confirmation, conversion and issuance of certificates in respect of shares quoted on the stock exchange.

He then submitted that by a community reading of Sections 224 (1), 234 (1) and (2), 242 and 236 (1) of the Investment and Securities Act Cap 124, LFN 2004, the Investment and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute. He relied on the decision of this Court in Ajayi Vs SEC (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt.1157) page 1 at 26.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Investment and Securities Act came into force on 26th May, 1999 while the suit leading to this appeal was filed on 9th April, 2002 and that in 2002 when the suit was filed, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.