Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Abubakar V. Unipetrol (2002) CLR 4(e) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 12th 2002

Brief

  • Mandatory injunction
  • Preservation of res

Facts

The 1st Respondent/Appellant had obtained judgment against the Applicant/Respondent at the Kano High Court on 11th March 1996 in the sum of N1,275,259.20. The Respondent appealed against the judgment on 3rd April 1996. In the meantime the Respondent deposited the Judgment debt with the Chief Registrar of the High Court (the 4th Respondent). He then filed an application for stay of execution and also to set aside the writ of execution filed by the Appellant. On 6th May 1996, the High Court granted the application in part to the effect that the Appellant should provide a person of means to guarantee that he would pay the judgment debt should the Respondent's appeal succeed.

The Respondent again dissatisfied with the Ruling of the High Court then filed a motion in the Court of Appeal, for an order for variation of the order of the High Court. The application was filed on 7th May 1996. All the Respondents including the Appellant herein, were aware of this motion at least by the 18th of May 1996.

In spite of the fact that the application to vary the order of the trial High Court was pending before the Court of Appeal, and that all the parties were aware of the application, the 1st and 2nd Respondents brought an ex¬parte motion on 6th June 1996 before the trial High Court to release the money, judgment debt, which was the subject matter of the application in the Court of Appeal to them. The trial Judge granted the motion and personally instructed the 4th Respondent and ensured that the money was released to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

At the hearing of the motion in the Court of Appeal the record shows that learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents conceded having received notice of Respondent's motion for variation on 18th May 1996. The learned Director of Civil Litigation, Kano State, who appeared for the 3rd and 4th Respondents also said that the 3rd and 4th Respondents although aware of the application, had no choice in the matter, because they were faced with the ex-parte order (Exhibit C) of the trial Judge to release the money to the 1st Respondent.

This in short were the facts and circumstances under which the Court of Appeal made the orders complained of above.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the decision of the Court below in unilaterally setting aside the...
  • Read More