CaseLaw
SGBN (Nig.) Ltd V. SSCM Ltd (1998) CLR 4(c) (CA)
Brief
Facts
This is an interlocutory appeal against the Ruling of a kano State High Court No.2 delivered on 30th March, 1995 per Ubbaonu, J. The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff before the lower court. The appellants were the defendants. The respondent, as an incorporated company deals in the business of manufacturing of foams, chemicals and some other products. It’s registered office is situate at Plot 89, Sharada Industrial Area, Phase II, Kano. It also maintains a branch office in Lagos. the 1st appellant is a Banking Institution having its registered office in Lagos and a branch in Kano. The respondent alleges that the 2nd appellant claimed to be agent of the 1st appellant. By a mortgage agreement dated 18th October, 1989 the 1st appellant agreed to grant banking facilities and or accommodation to the respondent. In pursuance of that a loan of that a loan of N3 million was granted to the respondent. The deed of legal mortgage covered the respondent’s property at Plot 89, Sharada Industrial Area phase II, Kano. The Mortgage debenture was unstamped to cover the sum of N10 million. Respondent’s indebtedness to the 1st appellant stood at N14,362,359.85k. however, both parties agreed that if the respondent would pay the sum of N6,547,230.00 within a certain period, the 1stappellant would accept same in full and final settlement of the respondent’s indebtedness to the 1st appellant. Respondent paid the said sum i.e. N6,547,230.00 to the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant however said that the respondent had failed to pay the sum within the time required. In a bid to get satisfaction of the full debt, 1st appellant threatened to sell the mortgaged property at Plot 89, Sharada Industrial Area, kano. The respondent then filed an action against the defendants at the Kano State High Court. After exchange of pleading, hearing commenced. In the meanwhile however, a motion on notice challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court or any High Court of Kano State to hear the suit was brought by the appellants. After hearing counsel for the respective parties, the learned trial Judge ruled in favour of the respondent by dismissing the motion. Dissatisfied with the ruling the appellants filed