Just Decided Cases

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V CHIEF JAMES O. EDEWOR & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1992) Legalpedia (FHC) 17931

In the Federal High Court

Mon Dec 21, 1992

Suit Number: FHC/B/5/M4/86

CORAM


JUSTICE ABDULLAHI MUSTAPHA


PARTIES


AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD PETITIONER(S)


RESPONDENTS / APPELLANT


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

African Continental Bank filed a petition before this court for winding up of the Nigerian Casino Company for inability to pay its judgment debt of N2,446,734.37 (Two million four hundred and forty six thousand, seven hundred and thirty four naira thirty seven kobo). While the petition was pending, the petitioner filed a misfeasance summons praying for a declaration that the six directors in the summons are guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust to the company. Upon service of the summons on the directors the 1st Respondent brought a motion under Order 4 Rule 5(2) and Order 27 Rules 1, 2 and 3, Order 31 Rule 19 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1976, Section 9 of the Federal High Court Act 1973 Order 2 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court of England and the inherent juris¬diction of this court for an Order that the misfeasance summons be dismissed or struck out against him. In a considered ruling, the summons was dismissed but while same was before the court, the 2nd Respondent brought a similar motion for the dismissal of the misfeasance summons against him which is the subject of this ruling.


HELD


Motion allowed


ISSUES


None


RATIONES DECIDENDI


MISFEASANCE SUMMONS – WHEN CAN A MISFEASANCE SUMMON BE ISSUED AGAINST A DIRECTOR


“Thus while it is wrong to contend that the conduct of a particular director must have been examined before a misfeasance summons is issued against him it is equally wrong to say that such a summons can be issued against any director without proof of impropriety on the part of the director during the course of winding up of the company” PER MUSTAPHA J


MISFEASANCE ACTION – PURPOSE OF A MISFEASANCE ACTION


“The main purpose of the misfeasance action is indeed to examine into the conduct of the Respondents and compel them to repay or restore the money or property of the company that they have misapplied, retained or committed misfeasance or breach of trust thereof” PER MUSTAPHA J


MISFEASANCE AND BREACH OF TRUST – MEANING OF MISFEASANCE AND BREACH OF TRUST


“Misfeasance and breach of trust is said to include a breach by a promoter director, liquidator or officer of his duty to the company the direct consequence of which has been a misapplication or loss of its assets, for which he could be made responsible in an action” PER MUSTAPHA J


CASES CITED


NONE


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap. 59The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1976?


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

legaladmin

Recent Posts

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-08) Legalpedia 42685 (CA) In the Court of Appeal PORT HARCORT Mon Aug…

6 months ago

ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE OF NIGER CONTRACTOR CO. OF NIGERIA VS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KADUNA STATE

Legalpedia Citation: Legalpedia SC KIZW In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Thu Sep 11, 2025…

6 months ago

COMMISSONER OF POLICE, WESTERN REGION VS ALOYSIUS IGWE & 2 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-01) Legalpedia 19912 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 months ago

CLEMENT AKRAN VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-02) Legalpedia 45350 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

6 months ago

J. A. IREM VS OBUBRA DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 03348 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

6 months ago

JOHN KHALIL KHAWAM AND CO VS K CHELLARAM AND SONS (NIGERIA)

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 49115 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

6 months ago