Virgin Technologies Limited V. Mrs. Maimuna Shuaibu Mohammed & Anor (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM J.C.A.

The facts which led to this appeal are that about the 29th day of January, 2004, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Appellant discovered that the 1st Respondent, who is a director and “co-sole signatory” to the Appellant’s account, had allegedly transferred/carted to her personal account, the sum of N199,660,000.00 (One Hundred and Ninety-Nine Million, Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira only) from the Appellant’s Account. The account in question is with the 2nd Respondent which is a Bank. Attempts at persuading the 1st Respondent to return the money failed and the CEO resorted to adjudication for redress.

On the 03/03/04, an order of interim Injunction was issued restraining the Respondents in the following terms: –

“1. That an order of Interim Injunction is hereby made restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, and or privies from withdrawing, transferring or in any way dissipating the sum of N199,660,000. 00 currently lodged in the 1st Defendant’s account with the 2nd Defendant pending the Hearing and Determination of the Motion on Notice.

2. That an order of Interim injunction is hereby made restraining the Defendants their servants, agents and or privies from tampering with or in any way dealing with the sum of N199,660,000.00 currently lodged in the 1st Defendant’s account with the 2nd Defendant in any manner whatsoever detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiff in the said funds, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion of Notice.

3. That prayer 5 on the Motion Exparte is a mere suplusage and it is refused.

4. That this matter is adjourned to 22nd day of March, 2004 for Hearing of the Motion on Notice

5. That all the Court Processes should be served on the Defendants.

ISSUED AT LAGOS, Under the Seal of the Court and the Hand of the Presiding Judge this 3rd day of March, 2004.”

This respite was however short lived as the 1st Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the locus standi of the CEO to institute the action in the name of the Appellant.

The Appellant filed a similar application which was dismissed. The Preliminary Objection of the 1st Respondent was upheld and the suit was struck out.

This appeal by the Plaintiff before the trial Court, hereafter referred to as Appellant, seeks a reversal of the decision of the trial Court and a restoration of the interim injunction pending the determination of the suit on the merit.

“By the leave of this Court granted on the 24/01/08, the Appellant amended the Notice of Appeal by an additional ground to the original sole ground of appeal.

Two issues were formulated respectively tied to each of the grounds of appeal.