TAIWO OKEOWO & ORS VS MRS D. A. MIGLIORE & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

TAIWO OKEOWO & ORS VS MRS D. A. MIGLIORE & ORS

NWAFOR OKEGBU V. THE STATE
August 1, 2025
NGENE ARUM VS THE STATE
August 1, 2025
NWAFOR OKEGBU V. THE STATE
August 1, 2025
NGENE ARUM VS THE STATE
August 1, 2025
Show all

TAIWO OKEOWO & ORS VS MRS D. A. MIGLIORE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1979-11) Legalpedia 70514 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

LAGOS

Fri Nov 30, 1979

Suit Number: SC.36/1979

CORAM


IRIKEFE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


TAIWO OKEOWO

MRS. G. OKEOWO

E. OLATUNDE AYOOLA

APPELLANTS 


MRS. D. A. MIGLIORE

AIRALDO MANGILI

MRS. G. MANGILI

METAL CONSTRUCTION (W.A.) LTD

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE COURT

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal dealt with two rulings. The latter ruling was aimed at facilitating the implementation of the order made in the earlier ruling. At its inception, this matter ran into the teeth of formidable procedural opposition, which progressively lost its sting in the course of its journey through the Federal Revenue court (now the Federal High court), and the Court of Appeal. The jurisdiction of the federal Revenue court was invoked by the respondents by means of an originating summons. The Court of Appeal resolved in favor of the respondents and this decision, brought the final appeal in the Supreme Court.

 

 


HELD


The orders made by the trial judge in his rulings which was already affirmed by the Court of Appeal, were re-affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

 

 


ISSUES


The learned Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal misconstrued or failed to give effect to the provisions of Section 128 of the Companies Decree and thereby came to a wrong decision.

 

The learned Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts in failing to observe that the respondents did not establish that the conditions precedent to the exercise of the powers vested in the Federal Revenue Court pursuant to Section 128 of the Companies Decree existed or had arisen in this case.

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI



THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE COURT TO MAKE ORDERS IN ITS JUDGMENT

 

 


CASES CITED


None.

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.