n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Steel Bell (Nig.) Ltd V. Govt. CRS (1996) CLR 4(g) (CA)

Brief

  • Certiorari
  • Commission of inquiry
  • Affidavit evidence
  • Non compliance with rules of court
  • Service of process

Facts

The appellant is a company. The 1st respondent is the Government of Cross River State. The 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent needed sixty Land Rovers. In July 1987, the 1st respondent contracted with the appellant for the supply of the sixty Land Rovers at the cost of N5,833,370.00. Due to the fall in the value of the naira and price increase by the Manufacturers the contract price was varied to N7,465,592.40k.

In January, 1990, the 1st respondent instituted a Commission of Inquiry in the name and style of Commission of Inquiry (Projects Review) to investigate Government contracts awarded up to and including the 31st day of December, 1989, and make recommendations to it. The contract between the appellant and the 1st respondent came within the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry. The company was invited by the Commission of Inquiry for a discussion of the contract. After the discussion and investigation, involving the calling of witnesses, the Commission of Inquiry made recommendations to Government.

The 1st respondent rejected the recommendation of the Commission in which the contractor was given up till the 13th day of July, 1990 to supply the remaining three vehicles. The 1st respondent directed that “the contractor supplies sixty vehicles to Government or the contract terminates for part-performance; and on the basis of quantum meruit the contractor refunds the sum equal to the number of vehicles not supplied with interest at the ruling rate”. The contractor was blacklisted.

Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant filed a motion in the lower court in the following terms:

  • i
    Granting leave to the applicant to present an application for an Order of Certiorari to bring up to this Honourable court for the purpose of being quashed, the views of the Government of CROSS RIVERS STATE on the report of the commission of Inquiry (PROJECTS REVIEW) so far as they purport to indict or blacklist the applicant.
  • ii
    AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the government of Cross River State, its servants or agents from enforcing its said views, pending the determination of the substantive application.
  • iii
    ANY OTHER ORDER/ORDERS AS TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT SHALL SEEM JUST”.

    • The learned trial Judge dismissed the motion. Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the appellant filed an appeal. As usual, briefs were filed and duly exchanged.

Issues

  • i
    Whether appellant’s action was brought by due process of the law....

Read More