n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Uwakwe V. Odogwu (1989) CLR 12(a) (SC): 5 NWLR (Pt.123) 562 (SC)

Brief

  • Exercise of discretion
  • Appointment of receiver
  • Receiver

Facts

Sometimes in 1980 the appellants as plaintiffs took out a writ of summons against the respondents as defendants I the High Court of Anambra State holden at Onitsha. By a subsequent order of court, the 3rd –12th c0-defendants/respondents were joined as a party to the suit. In the said suit, the appellants sought a declaration that they were entitled to statutory right of occupancy to all the land known and called Ani Nwaokwe, N40,000.00 as general damages and a perpetual injunction. On 18/5/1985 the appellants filed an application wherein two orders were sought:-

  • 1
    an order of injunction restraining the respondents or their agents or servants from building or continuing to build on the land in dispute or from alienating any portion thereof pending the determination of the above suit;
  • 2
    an order appointing a receiver to manage, control and collect rents from the buildings and structures which the respondents, the co-respondents and their servants have enacted or are erecting on the disputed land.

In the affidavit in support of the application, it was deposed that the respondents were in possession of the disputed property. The appellants stated further that they had no interest in the buildings and structures being erected or already erected by the respondents and that it would cause them great difficulty and expense in removing the structures.

Aneke, J heard and considered the application. On 2/3/1986, he refused the relief on injunction on the ground that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondents and that it was impracticable to demolish the buildings already put up by the respondents. But the trial Judge acceded to the application for the appointment of a receiver on the ground that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver. The trial Judge, in making the order had relied on the provisions of Section 25(1) of the High Court Law of the former Eastern Nigeria Cap 61 Laws of Eastern Nigeria, applicable in Anambra State. The section provides:-

  • 25(1)
    “The court may grant an injunction or appoint a receiver by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do”.

    • The respondents, dissatisfied with the order for the appointment of a receiver, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division. The Court of Appeal, after duly dealing with the appeal, held that it was not just and convenient to make the order for the appointment of a receiver made by the trial Judge. It therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Aneke, J.

    The appellants, not satisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not, having regard to the nature of the claim before the...
    • Read More