CHIEF MICHAEL EMERAH VS NIGERIA INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD
April 5, 2025BEST COURIER LIMITED VS CHUKWUDI OF OAKLEY INTERNATIONAL LTD
April 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 17867
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Fri Mar 1, 2019
Suit Number: CA/L/655/2013
CORAM
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EBIOWEI TOBI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
MILAN (INDUSTRIES) NIGERIA LTD
APPELLANTS
TREVI FOUNDATIONS NIGERIA LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Respondent instituted an action at the trial court against the Defendant/Appellant seeking several reliefs among which were a claim for payment for work done. The Defendant/Appellant by a motion sought for stay of proceedings for the matter to be referred to a sole arbitrator and same was granted. The matter was referred to the Lagos State Multi Door Court House for arbitration by a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator declined jurisdiction to arbitrate on the matter since the condition precedent for the arbitration to be conducted had not been fulfilled. Subsequently, the Respondent filed another application seeking for an order to refer the matter to the Lagos State Multi- Door Court, before a sole arbitrator and to the same Multi Door court house which had declined jurisdiction earlier. The application was granted. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant has appealed to this court on grounds that the suit is incompetent as the writ was not signed by a legal practitioner as required by law, also that the order of the lower court staying the proceeding is still subsisting as it had not been set aside hence, the lower court is functus officio over the issue covered in the latter motion. The Respondent did not file any brief of argument or any process.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Respondent’s suit at the court below was competent having regard to the fact that the writ of summons was not signed by a qualified legal practitioner. Whether the court below was functus officio with respect to making an order referring the suit to arbitration. Whether under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A 18, LFN, 2004, leave of court is required to refer a suit to arbitration save in circumstances prescribed in Sections 4 and 5 thereof.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT