The appellant and the respondent were married under customary law in 1976, but before the commencement of this action, they divorced.
The appellant was at all time before the marriage, a business woman engaged in various types of private business enterprises, including contract works, bulk and retail supply business, farming and construction. The respondent on the other hand was at all time before the marriage and thereafter a civil servant working in the Ministry of Works of Imo State. When the going between them was good, a firm named EMCECO Engineering Company was registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961 in the joint names of the appellant and the respondent in 1980.
Following the break-down of the marriage resulting in divorce, the appellant filed the present suit seeking for a declaration that she was the owner and sole proprietor of the firm known and registered as EMCECO Engineering Company.
In support of her case, the appellant relied on an affidavit sworn to previously by the respondent and which was admitted as Exhibit 13. In it the respondent deposed as follows in paragraphs 4 and 8-:
-
4
That I have no business dealing since Mrs. C.I. Nwankwo conducts business wholly and solely for EMCECO Eng. Co."
-
8
That I authorise and support the use of Mrs. C.I. Nwankwo to conduct all business thatters of the company since she is the proprietor and Managing Director. All other documents should bear her name."
The appellant contended that Exhibit 13 amounted to an admission under sections 20(1), 126 and 150 of the Evidence Act that the appellant is the owner and sole proprietor of EMCECO and therefore binding on the respondent. For the respondent, it was argued that Exhibit 13 was sworn to by him in order to circumvent the Regulated and other Professions (Private Practice Prohibition) Decree No.34 of 1984 and also that its contents were not brought to the notice of the Registrar of Business Names as stipulated by section 9 of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1961.
At the end of the trial, the trial High Court granted all the appellant's claims save the claim for damages. The respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment and he appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and dismissed the appellant's claims.
The appellant also felt aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal and she appealed to the Supreme Court. The following statutory provisions were construed by the Supreme Court in the determination of the appeal...
