Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Houtmangracht and Anor V. Oduba (1995) CLR 1 (q) (CA)

Brief

  • Security of costs
  • Exercise of discretion by court
  • Affidavit evidence

Facts

The 1st and 2nd appellant sued the respondent in the Lagos State High Court claiming amongst other things:

  • (a)
    A declaration that the action brought by the respondent for professional services was not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
  • (b)
    A declaration that the respondent's application of the said Federal High Court for the arrest of the 1st appellants ship by order of that court was irregular.
  • (c)
    A declaration that the payment of the sum of £283,697.84 and $34,487.83 into the respondents account in London by the 1st appellant in compliance with the precondition set by the respondents for the early release of the 1st appellants ship from arrest was made under duress.

At close of pleadings, respondent brought an application praying the court for an order that the appellants do pay security for costs and for stay of further proceedings until such security for costs was paid.

Respondent also stated that he would need 22 witnesses for his defence with most of them coming from outside Nigeria, the cost of which was put at $84,279.76 and N10,000.00. Appellants filed a counter-affidavit which contained facts as to the large amount of U.S. Dollars and sterling which had already been paid to the respondent pursuant to a court proceedings in the federal High court.

The trial Judge granted the orders sought and the sum exactly as requested by the respondent as security for costs. A stay of further proceedings in the action until the security for costs is paid was also granted. Dissatisfied, appellant went to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • Whether the trial Judge exercised his judicial discretion Judiciously in making...
    Read More