n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Obasi V. Mikson Establishment Ind Ltd (2016) CLR 7(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 1st 2016

Brief

  • Section 10 of the Foreign Judgments/Reciprocal Enforcement Act
  • Judicial precedence – Nature and effect of
  • Ground of law and one not of law – Distinction between
  • Ground of appeal
  • Section 233(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended)
  • Section 233(3) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 6 (1) (a) (iv) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act
  • Section 6 (1) (A) (VI) of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1990
  • Section 10 of the Foreign Judgments/Reciprocal Enforcement Act 1990
  • Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Order 11 Rule 2 of the Kano State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988

Facts

The facts leading to the appeal to this Court are summarised hereunder.

Sometime in 1998 the Respondent sued the Appellant in the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal, Maradi, Niger Republic. The suit number is Trial No.4 /98. The said Tribunal gave judgment in favour of the Respondent.

Before the Kano State High Court of Justice, sitting in Kano, the Respondent, as the judgment creditor in respect of the foreign judgment, filed an ex parte application for an order, pursuant to Section 10 of the Foreign Judgments/Reciprocal Enforcement Act 152 Laws of the Federation 1990, to register the foreign judgment for the purpose of its execution in Nigeria. Satisfied that the applicant (now Respondent) had satisfied the requirements of the law for the grant of the relief sought, the Kano State High Court ordered as follows:

  • 1
    "That a judgment delivered in Niger Republic against the judgment debtor/Respondent known and called Kirian Ikpara Abasi who is now resident here in Kano within the jurisdiction of this Court in Suit No. Trial 45/98 is hereby registered as the judgment of this Court.
  • 2
    The said judgment should be enforced as the judgment of this Court."

The order registering the foreign judgment was made on 29-6-99.

Upon the registration of the judgment the Respondent, as the judgment/creditor levied execution against the moveable properties of the appellant as judgment/debtor. The appellant, aggrieved by the enforcement of the foreign judgment against him, applied to the Court for the following relief:

  • "To set aside the Registration of the foreign judgment between the above -named parties as shown above.
  • To set aside the execution carried out on 29/6/99 and 1/7/99 against the above-named judgment debtor/applicant and seizing is moveable personal properties including any other.
  • Execution which the registrar Court may carry out after the filing of this motion on notice.
  • An order compelling the bailiff of the Registering Court to release forthwith all moveable properties of the named judgment debtor applicant to him."

The Registering Court heard the application and in its ruling delivered on 16/7/99, it dismissed the application in its entirety. In addition it made the following order:

  • "That it is hereby ordered that the name of the plaintiff being described as MIKSON ESTABLISHMENT INDUSTRIES LTD in t e motion paper dated 28th June 1998 be substituted with the name MIKSON INDUSTRIES LTD as the proper and authentic name of the plaintiff as contained in the foreign judgment registered by the Court on 29-6-00.”

Appellant was aggrieved with the ruling, particularly with the order on the name of the Respondent judgment creditor on the motion paper. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. In its judgment delivered on 22nd day of November 2004 the Court below dismissed the appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below appellant appealed to this Court

Issues

  • i
    Whether the power conferred by the provisions of Order 11 Rule 2 of the...
    • Read More