Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Honda V. Globe (2005) CLR 7(c) (SC)

Brief

  • Affidavit evidence
  • Final decision
  • Res judicata

Facts

The Appellant was a Dealer appointed by the Japanese manufacturers of Honda cars, to import and market Honda cars in Nigeria. On 2nd December, 1993, the Appellant entered into a Sub-dealership Agreement with the Respondent as a sub-dealer of Honda cars with the right to import and market 45% of cars allotted to the Appellant by the Japanese manufacturer.

Afterwards, a dispute arose between the parties in the operations of the Sub-dealership Agreement. This led to a spate of litigations, the principal one being Suit No. LD/1643/96 between the Appellant as 1st Plaintiff and the Respondent as 1st Defendant. The suit was eventually settled out of Court with the "Terms of Settlement" duly signed by all the parties. The terms of settlement were embodied in and became the judgment of the Court. The judgment of the Court reads as follows:

"Judgment is hereby entered as per the terms of settlement filed by both parties as follows:

  • 1.
    The 1st and 2nd Defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies shall cease from any publication or advertisements or presentation of themselves to the public as otherwise sole or exclusive distributors or sole dealers of Honda cars in Nigeria;
  • 2.
    The Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants have agreed that all advertisements will include all other authorized Honda dealers under one umbrella, each dealer to be identified by the words “Honda" + their respective locations. The words 'T.H.P. Limited" shall appear in one comer in small letters in all adverts.
  • 3.
    The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall cease forthwith after the arrival of 106 units of Honda cars already committed to and arriving before the end of November 1996, the importation of HONDA CARS into Nigeria from the United States of America, the Middle East or any other source and shall deal only in and participate in the sale of Honda cars imported or sold in Nigeria by Honda Motor Company Limited of Japan through the 2nd Plaintiff, the sole and exclusive Distributor of Honda Japan in Nigeria.
  • 4.
    The 1st Defendant shall purchase a backlog of 45 units of Honda cars from the Plaintiffs at a price to be mutually agreed upon before ordering/importing any new Honda cars through the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall subsequently supply information, prices, policies and guidelines. On completion of the backlog, the Plaintiff shall provide proforma invoices through T.H.P. Limited on request by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Payments for the said backlog shall be done as agreed by the Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
  • 5.
    The Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants hereby agreed that the Sub-dealership agreement of 2nd December, 1993 is no longer operative.
  • 6.
    The Plaintiffs hereby re-appoint the 1st Defendant as a Dealer for Honda cars subject to the above conditions and in line with Honda rules, policies and guidelines and both parties shall enter into a new Dealership Agreement subject to the approval of Honda Motor Company of Japan.
  • 7.
    The Plaintiffs hereby discontinue this action against 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants.
  • 8.
    Parties to bear their costs"
  • While Suit No. M/471/97 was still pending at the Lagos High Court, the Respondent filed a fresh action against the Appellant in Suit No. ID/915/98 at the Ikeja Division of the Lagos State High Court. In that suit the Respondent pleaded the Sub-dealership Agreement of 2nd December, 1993.

    Upon the receipt of the said processes, the Appellant entered a conditional appearance and filed a defence wherein it raised the issue of res judicata based on the consent judgment, and abuse of Court process based on the pending Suit No. M/471/97.

    Thereafter the Appellant filed an application to dismiss or strike out the suit on the grounds that the suit is res judicata, an abuse of Court process and the Court tacked jurisdiction. The High Court however dismissed the application. The Appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed, hence this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether there was sufficient materials before the High Court to enable...
    Read More