n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Sulgrave Holdings Inc. Ors. Vs. FGN (2012) CLR 7(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 6th 2012

Brief

  • Statute barred claim
  • Limitation laws
  • Public Officers Protection Act

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on the 6th July, 2005, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja, given on the 8th October, 2003. The trial Federal High Court has upheld the respondents' preliminary objection and dismissed the appellants' Suit on three grounds, namely:

  • a
    "That the appellants' suit was statute-barred by virtue of Section 2(2)(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap. 41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
  • b
    That the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action; and
  • c
    That the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

In the appellants' appeal to the court below, they still subjected the three grounds of the respondents' objection to further consideration. At the end of the day, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appellants' appeal as lacking in merit. At page 655 of the Record, the court below concluded and pronounced as follows:

  • "Bearing all the authorities cited and considered in mind, some of which I have referred to and stated above, I see with clarity that the lower court looking at the statement of claim and finding that there was no cause of action was right to terminate the suit thereto and then since there was no cause of action as he so found, therefore no jurisdiction upon which he could proceed, but the proper order should have been a striking out and not a dismissal. See Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 116) 517 at 549."

At pages 668-669 lines 7-18 and 24-25, it was stated:

  • "The situation is all the more tied up in view of the fact that by their own admission from their copious joint Statement of Claim which the appellants quoted in extenso with details in their brief, they were aware of the letters written by the respondents and the letters terminated 13 months to the appellants bringing their action. The appellants are clearly barred, as their action was statute barred without a redeeming feature or features as some of the authorities we have cited showed. It is in the light of that that I answer the issue No. 3 positively.

The learned trial Judge was right in holding that the action of the appellants was statute-barred and dismissed the action on account of that.

Therefore this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I affirm the decision of the court below dismissing the suit."

The facts of the case that led to the claim of the appellants that further led to the above concurrent decisions of the two lower courts are exposed as follows.

The Military Government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar which succeeded that of the late General Sani Abacha, recovered well over $800 million, from the family of the latter, and his close associates. The recoveries are detailed in Decree No. 53 of 1999.

In May 1999 when the country returned to Civil Rule, the Government discovered that the amount looted from the National Treasury by the General Sani Abacha and members of his family was considerably more than what had been recovered by the previous Government. The Criminal Investigation instituted by the Government traced the looted funds to a number of foreign countries which includes United Kingdom, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Jersey and Switzerland.

Between 1999 and 2000, the Government requested in writing the assistance of the above countries in the criminal investigation against the financial activities of Abacha and his family and accomplices. This yielded results and through judicial processes it was discovered that more than 90 front-companies including the appellants and foreign banks were found to be involved in an intricate web of financial fraud and money laundering. Consequently, members of the Abacha family and their associates were charged to court for sundry financial offences in some of the aforementioned jurisdiction. Convictions were recorded against some offenders and their accounts were frozen and well over $2 billion traceable to the accounts, some of which belonged to the appellants, were frozen.

Way back home here in Nigeria, the 19th appellant with some of his close associates were charged to court on 33 - counts for fraud and sundry offences.

The appellants sought to challenge the actions of the Federal Government, particularly the letters of requests for foreign assistance in the criminal investigations, instituted an action at the Federal High Court Abuja on 27/09/2001 seeking the following reliefs:-

  • 1
    "A DECLARATION that the 1st and 2nd defendants had no right or power to issue letters of request for assistance or to make request for assistance which have the effect or purport to have the effect of determining the rights of the plaintiffs.
  • 2
    A DECLARATION that the 1st and 2nd defendants had no right or power to issue the Swiss Letter, the Luxembourg letter, the Liechtenstein Letter nor to make any requests for assistance to the 7th and 8th defendants.
  • 3
    A DECLARATION that the Swiss Letter, the Luxembourg Letter, the Liechtenstein Letter and such other letters of request for assistance not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and any requests for assistance to the 7th and 8th defendants are unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
  • 4
    AN ORDER setting aside the Swiss Letter, the Luxembourg Letter, the Liechtenstein Letter and such other letters of request for assistance not disclosed to the plaintiffs, and any requests for assistance to the 7th and 8th defendants.
  • 5
    AN ORDER of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, particularly the 1st and 2nd defendants acting through their servants and agents from relying on any advantage derived from the said letters of request afore described as any steps taken thereon to the benefit of the said defendants in so far as it is from the said letters of request are void.
  • 6
    A MANDATORY ORDER directing the defendants to withdraw the afore described letters or request as they are void.
  • 7
    AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st to 3rd defendants jointly and severally whether acting by themselves, servants or their agents, from proceeding, continuing, causing to be continued, or assisting in anyway whatsoever with the Swiss Letters, the Luxembourg Letter, the Liechtenstein Letter and any request for assistance to the Secretary of State of Home Affairs, United Kingdom and the Attorney General of Jersey except in accordance with the due process and procedure permitted by law."

It is in the course of the proceedings that the respondents filed the said preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court on the grounds set out above essentially that the suit filed by the appellants at the trial court was statute-barred and for that reason the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain same. The lower court on the basis of the foregoing dismissed the appeal.

The appellants have appealed to this court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial...

Read More