Veepee Industries Limited v. Ocean Fisheries (Nigeria) Limited (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

ADAMU JAURO, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, in appeal No. CA/I/141/2005 delivered on 5th May, 2008, wherein the lower court declared the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State granting the appellant’s claims a nullity and set same aside for want of jurisdiction.

Brief facts of the case

The appellant, the plaintiff at the trial court is a company dealing in the manufacture and sales of polypropylene products with its registered office at Km. 30 Lagos-Abeokuta Road, Sango-Otta, Ogun State. The 1st respondent, which was the 1st Defendant, has its registered office at 25, Creek Road, Apapa, Lagos, and operated a Shrimp Processing Plant at Plot 67, Ikorodu Industrial Estate, Ikorodu, Lagos State.

The appellant and the 1st respondent had an agreement for the appellant to supply its products on credit to the 1st respondent on the condition that invoices would be settled within 30 days, otherwise, interest would be charged at bank rate. Between 7th January, 1998 and 13th August, 1998, the appellant supplied the products to the 1st respondent’s Ikorodu plant as agreed such that the 1st respondent was indebted to it in the sum of N461,495.25.

After oral and written demands were made by the appellant for the 1st respondent to settle its indebtedness, the appellant instituted the suit at the trial court. The claim in the suit was for the payment of the sum of N461,495.25 with 30% interest thereon.

The 1st respondent on its part denied the appellant’s claims and alleged that at all times material to the claim, it was the 2nd respondent that was in control and management of its shrimp processing plant at Ikorodu by virtue of an agreement of 2nd October, 1997 and that it is the 2nd respondent that is responsible for settling any debt, and that if any invoice was issued by the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent, it was issued in error. The 1st respondent accordingly applied to join the 2nd respondent as a defendant to the suit, which application was granted without opposition by the appellant.

Despite the service of processes on it, the 2nd respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the trial court. The appellant and the 2nd respondent each called a witness at the trial.

At the conclusion of trial and after the addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge granted the appellant’s claim and struck out the name of the 2nd respondent because the appellant had no claim against it. Dissatisfied by the outcome of the suit at the trial court, the 1st respondent appealed to the court below and by leave of that court, it raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

The court below allowed the appeal and held that it was the High Court of Lagos State, not the High Court of Ogun State that had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In coming to its decision, the Court, in addition to a host of judicial authorities, relied on Order 10 Rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court of Ogun State which provides as follows:

“All suits for specific performance, or upon the breach of any contract, shall be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which such contract ought to have been performed or in which the defendant resides or carries on business.”

The appellant was displeased with the judgment of the lower court and has now appealed to this court via a notice of appeal predicated on two grounds.

Appellant’s submissions and arguments

Audu Augustine, Esq, who settled the appellant’s brief of argument formulated two issues for determination in urging the court to allow the appeal thus: