CORAM

---

Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA

folasade ayodeji ojo JCA

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo JCA

---

PARTIES

---

AMYTORIX COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. NET CONSTRUCT NIGERIA LIMITED

2. ABAH ONAH, ESQ (RECEIVER MANAGER ALMA BEACH ESTATE LTD IN- RECEIVERSHIP)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONTRACT LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEAL RULES, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case arises from two applications filed by the appellant and respondent. The appellant, Amytorix Company Nigeria Limited, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the ruling of the High Court of Lagos State, which assumed jurisdiction in a matter involving a debenture trust deed.

The appellant contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The respondent, Net Construct Nigeria Limited, filed a counter-application to strike out the appellants two Notices of Appeal for incompetence. The respondent argued that the Notices were flawed because they referred to the decision of a judge rather than the High Court itself. The appellant sought to amend the Notice of Appeal to correct this technical defect.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant’s application to amend the Notice of Appeal, holding that the inclusion of the judge’s name in the notice was a mere irregularity that could be cured by amendment. The respondent’s application to strike out the Notices of Appeal was dismissed, except for the second Notice of Appeal filed on 23/11/2021, which was not amended and was thus struck out.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the appellants application to amend the Notice of Appeal should be granted?

2. Whether the respondent’s application to strike out the Notices of Appeal is competent?

3. Whether the appellant’s Notices of Appeal were defective and incapable of being amended?

4. Whether the inclusion of the judge’s name in the Notice of Appeal constitutes a fundamental defect or a mere irregularity.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AMENDMENT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL – WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL COULD BE AMENDED TO CURE A DEFECT

---

The Court held that the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant was competent, as the inclusion of the judge’s name was a mere surplusage that did not affect the substance of the notice. The defect could be cured by amendment under the Court of Appeal Rules, specifically Order 7 Rule 8, which permits the amendment of notices that do not contain fundamental defects.

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

VALIDITY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL – WHETHER A NOTICE OF APPEAL THAT NAMES A JUDGE RATHER THAN THE HIGH COURT IS INVALID

---

“The Court determined that while the Notice of Appeal mentioned the presiding judge, it also clearly referenced the ruling of the High Court. This did not constitute a fundamental error. The name of the judge was considered a non-essential detail that could be corrected by amendment.”

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO AMEND CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

“The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the appellant’s application was an abuse of court process. It was found that the application to amend was necessary to correct a technical error and was not filed for malicious or vexatious purposes.”

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

ROLE OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE – WHETHER COURTS SHOULD FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE OVER TECHNICALITIES IN AMENDING COURT PROCESSES

---

“The Court emphasized the importance of substantive justice over technicalities. It reiterated that mistakes in legal drafting, such as the inclusion of a judge’s name, should not override the proper adjudication of issues on their merits. The amendment sought did not change the substance of the appeal, and justice would be better served by allowing it.”

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

---

“The Court noted that the underlying issue in the appeal was the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State to entertain a matter involving a debenture trust deed. The appellant argued that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution. However, this issue was left for determination in the substantive appeal.”

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

PRINCIPLES GUIDING AMENDMENTS – WHETHER THE COURT WILL ALLOW AMENDMENTS IF THEY DO NOT PREJUDICE THE OPPOSING PARTY

---

“The Court reaffirmed that amendments are generally allowed as long as they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party. In this case, the respondent did not demonstrate how the proposed amendment would prejudice its case, and therefore, the amendment was granted.”

– Per Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT