ADO IBRAHIM & COY. LTD. V BENDEL CEMENT COY. LTD - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ADO IBRAHIM & COY. LTD. V BENDEL CEMENT COY. LTD

ABAYOMI BABATUNDE V PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT AGENCIES LTD. & 2 ORS
June 4, 2025
ELEM CHUKWU IBATOR & 2 ORS V CHIEF BELL BARAKURO & 3 ORS
June 4, 2025
ABAYOMI BABATUNDE V PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT AGENCIES LTD. & 2 ORS
June 4, 2025
ELEM CHUKWU IBATOR & 2 ORS V CHIEF BELL BARAKURO & 3 ORS
June 4, 2025
Show all

ADO IBRAHIM & COY. LTD. V BENDEL CEMENT COY. LTD

Legalpedia Citation: (2007) Legalpedia (SC) 43342

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Apr 13, 2007

Suit Number: SC. 284/2001

CORAM


IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. OGWUEGBU -JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, JSC, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ADO IBRAHIM & COY. LTD. APPELLANTS


BENDEL CEMENT COY. LTD

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, a shareholder of the respondent company sought the winding up of the company on the grounds that it was irredeemably insolvent.


HELD


The petition is incompetent.


ISSUES


Was the court below right to have allowed the appeal on ground that the petition was not competent under the “just and equitable” ground of section 408(e) of CAMA 1990.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


WHEN A CONTRIBUTORY CAN BRING AN ACTION FOR WINDING UP ON A JUST AND EQUITABLE GROUND


Other contingents to the making of such order include, inter alia, the following:-
The contributory must allege and prove that there will be assets for distribution.
That the petition is opposed by a majority of contributories. In this case the court will refuse to make that order unless the main objects of the Company have failed or became impracticable or that the substratum of the company was gone, e.g. where the Company is making a loss or is deeply indebted.
an order will be made where it is shown that the conduct of the majority is such as to constitute an oppression to the petitioning minority Per Muhammad JSC


CASES CITED


1. Akpan v. Otong (1996) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt. 476) 1082. Badejo v. Minister of Education (1996) 9-10 SCNJ 51 3. Fatuode v. Onwoamanam (1990) 2 N.W.LR. (Pt. 132) 3224. IBWA v. Pavex International (2000) 4 SCNJ 200.5. Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 N.W.LR (Pt 132) 322


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1.Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap 59, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (also contained in Cap. C20 of Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004)

2. Court of Appeal Act of 1976 (now contained in the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, vol. 4 Cap. C36

3. Court of Appeal Rules, 2001

4. Evidence Act Cap. 112 of LFN 1990 (now contained in LFN, 2004, Cap E14)

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.