Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Bank of Baroda V. Iyalabani (2002) CLR 7(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 11th 2002

Brief

  • Commencement of action
  • Company status
  • Legal personality and locus standi
  • Pleadings (Amendment of)
  • Burden of proof
  • Holder (Meaning of in Bill of Exchange Act

Facts

This appeal is against the majority decision of the Court below (Coram, Onalaja & Acholonu JJCA, with Ayoola J.C.A. dissenting). This action was commenced by the Plaintiff in the High Court of Lagos State when a writ was issued against the Defendant. In this judgment, I will reproduce the Statement of Claim without its particulars. This is because that part of the Statement of Claim is not in dispute in this appeal. The relevant portion of the Statement of Claim reads:

  • 1
    The Defendant duly accepted the bills of exchange, particulars of which appear hereunder, drawn by Meltroid Limited payable at 90days after sight to the order of the Plaintiff.

Particulars

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  • 2
    On the due date of each of the said bills of exchange, the said bills were dishonoured by the Defendant by non-payment.
  • 3
    And the Plaintiff as holder claims against the Defendant as acceptor.
    • a
      the sum of US$2,267,007.90 or its equivalent in Naira at the date of judgment
    • b
      the sum of DFL1,979,033,41 or its equivalent in Naira at the date of judgment.
    • c
      interest on the said sums at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the writ herein until payment."

      • Upon being served with the Writ and the Statement of Claim, the Defendant also filed its own Statement of Defence. Following the filing of its Statement of Defence, a motion on notice dated 12/3/87 was filed and served by the Defendant for an order striking out the Statement of Claim herein and in particular "Bank of Baroda as Plaintiff therein as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action."

      The grounds upon which the Respondent sought for the order to strike out the Appellant's suit are as follows:

      • i
        The Plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this action
      • ii
        The Plaintiff is incompetent to institute the action on the face of the Statement of Claim."

      Then by a motion on notice dated 14th April 1987, the Plaintiff sought leave of the Court to amend "the Statement of Claim earlier filed in terms of the document delivered herewith, titled 'Amended Statement of Claim'". The amendment sought for by the Plaintiff was simply to include in the original Statement of Claim, the following averment;

      • "The said bills were indorsed by the said Meltroid Limited to the Plaintiff."

      The two motions were subsequently heard by the Learned Judge of the High Court of Lagos State. Following the hearing, the Learned Judge delivered a considered ruling. In the course of his ruling, the Learned Judge refused the prayer for the amendment of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim as he took the view that if the amendment was granted, it would overreach the Defendant. He also held that the Defendant would be deprived of the defence contained in paragraph 5 of its Statement of Defence and no amount of costs could adequately compensate the Defendant for the injury that it would thereby suffer.

      The Plaintiff/Appellant dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal. That was dismissed by a majority decision of 2-1 and the Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.

      Further dissatisfied the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • i
    Whether the High Court and the Court of Appeal were correct in...
    • Read More