n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ports and Cargo Handling V. Migfo Nig Ltd (2012) CLR 6(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 8th 2012
SC. 42/2009

Brief

  • Brief of argument
  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Grounds of appeal
  • Specific performance
  • Originating summons

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on 17 December 2008. By the judgment, the court below affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court wherein all the questions in the plaintiffs' (now the respondents) originating summons were resolved against the defendants (now appellants). Dissatisfied, the appellants further appealed to this court vide their notice of appeal filed on 18 December 2008, which was amended, containing 23 grounds of appeal out of which the following 6 issues were distilled:

  • i
    Considering the clear provisions of section 251 (1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution on which the trial High Court relied upon to assume jurisdiction in this matter, coupled with the claims submitted to the said trial High Court by the plaintiffs, as well as binding decisions of both this court and the lower court on the Federal High Court jurisdiction in similar circumstances, whether or not the lower court was not in grave error to have held as it did that the Federal High Court rightly assumed jurisdiction in this matter - Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16 and 17.
  • ii
    Whether or not the lower court was not wrong in its affirming plaintiffs/respondents 'reliefs 10, 11 and 12 under the cover of section 251 (1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution and relief 13 under the fact that appellants are limited liability companies over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction - Ground 22.
  • iii
    Having regard to the claims of the plaintiffs, the affidavit and documentary evidence submitted by parties before the trial High Court, as well as the binding decisions of the Supreme Court and even that of the Court of Appeal to the contrary, whether the lower court was not in serious error in holding that the respondents' suit was properly initiated by originating summons-Grounds7, 10, 11, 19, 21 and 23.
  • iv
    Whether or not the lower court did not fall into a serious error by holding that the nonjoinder of both the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) and the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) G by the plaintiffs is not fatal to the plaintiffs' case, as well as the jurisdiction of the trial High Court - Grounds 6 and 18.
  • v
    Considering the various and diverse reliefs granted by the trial High Court vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the said court, the provisions of CAMA, as well as the memorandum and articles H of association of the appellants, whether or not the lower court did not fall into serious error in affirming the said judgment and the reliefs - Grounds 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14.
  • vi
    Was the lower court not in gross error in its failure to consider and pronounce on several fundamental and pertinent issues placed before it by the appellants - Ground 2.

It is instructive to note that in this appeal, the respondents filed and relied on their notice of preliminary objection on 4 October 2011. It is that both the grounds of appeal numbered 3, 6, 7, 10 and 21 contained in the appellants/respondents' amended notice of appeal dated 4 February 2010, and the issue raised by the appellants/respondents in their brief of arguments dated 4 February 2010, to be arising for determination from the said grounds are incompetent and as such, the grounds should be struck out and the issues discountenanced or struck out.

There were several grounds upon which the said preliminary objection were based. However, treading carefully with cautious optimism, but without prejudice to the objections, the respondents proposed 6 issues for determination. On 13 March 2012 when this appeal was heard, learned senior counsel on both sides of the divide duly adopted and relied on their respective briefs of argument.

While the learned senior counsel for the appellants urged the court to allow the appeal, the learned senior counsel for the respondents urged that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents be upheld, and in the alternative, appeal should be considered on its merit, and be dismissed for lacking in merit and be accordingly dismissed.

The said respondents' notice of preliminary objection dated 2 October 2011 was filed on 4 October 2011 but served on the appellants on 13 October 2011. The appellants' reply brief filed on 16 November 2010 was in response to the new issues raised in the respondents' brief and reaction to the respondents notice of preliminary objection under reference.

In their preliminary objection, the respondents argued that the grounds of appeal contained in the appellants' amended notice of appeal and the issues raised in the appellants' brief of argument in support of these grounds are incompetent. Whether, considering the clear provisions of section 251 (1)(g) of the 1999

Issues

Whether, considering the clear provisions of section 251 (1)(g) of the 1999...

Read More