AFRIJET AIRLINES LIMITED .Vs. PROF.GBOLAHAN ELIAS, SAN & ANOR
April 11, 2025MATTHEW IKPEKPE V WARRI REFINERY &PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 73711
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Fri May 11, 2018
Suit Number: CA/L/1362/2017
CORAM
PARTIES
ANCHOR OCEAN LIMITED APPELLANTS
1. BONO ENERGY LIMITED2. ACORN PETROLEUM PLC3. FATGBEMS PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The substantive suit at the lower court was between the Respondents. The lower court made preservative orders by ordering sale of 5,000MT of DPK Cargo, the subject matter therein. It was discovered that 3,000MT (3,000,000.00 litres) of the cargo has been loaded out of the tank leaving only about 2,500,000.00 litres, which was then sold by the Admiralty Marshall to the Anchor Ocean Limited, the Appellant herein for a total sum of N400, 000,000.00, out of which N105, 759,850.00 was deducted at source as payment to the 3rd Respondents, Fatgbems Petroleum Company Limited, for alleged storage costs, leaving an outstanding balance of N294, 240,850.00. The said outstanding balance was not liquidated by the Appellant which cause the lower court to make an order directing the Admiralty Marshall to proceed to claim the balance of the sale of cargo. By a written letter, the Admiralty Marshall requested the Appellant to pay the outstanding sum as ordered by the lower court. Consequent upon the failure of the Appellant to pay the outstanding sum, the 1st Respondent as Plaintiff filed an application seeking inter alia a declaration that the refusal of the Appellant, Anchor Ocean Limited to pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price despite the order of the court and request by the Admiralty Marshall, amounts to contempt of court. The lower court granted the 1st Respondent application. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the Appellant has filed a notice of appeal on the grounds that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to make orders against it since it was not a party to the case before the lower court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower Court had the Jurisdiction and/or judicial power to make orders against the Appellant who was not a party to the case before the lower Court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT –WHETHER COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO MAKE ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PARTY TO AN ACTION
“It goes without saying that the Appellant’s counsel rightly stated the law to the effect that a court has no power to make orders either in favour or against persons who are not parties to an action. This position finds support in Cotecna Intl Ltd V Churchgate Nig. Ltd & Anor (2010) LPELR – 897 (SC); Oyeyemi & Ors V Owoeye & Anor (2017) LPELR – 41903 (SC); Nnaemeka V Chukwu Ogor Nig. Ltd [2007] 5 NWLR (PT 1026) 60; Biyu V Ibrahim [2006] 8 NWLR (PT 981) 1”
DECISION OF A COURT –DUTY ON COURTS IN ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION
“In Udo V State (2016) LPELR – 40721 (SC), the Apex Court, per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC remarked that the decision of a court must always be considered in the light of its own peculiar facts or circumstances. See also Ugwuanyi V Nicon Insurance Plc (2013) LPELR – 20092 (SC); Skye Bank & Anor V Akinpelu (2010) LPELR – 3073 (SC).”
ORDER OF COURT – WHETHER A COURT CAN MAKE ORDER AGAINST A NON-PARTY
“I am of the firm view that general position of law precluding the court from making orders against a non-party can be whittled down by the peculiar circumstance of the instant case. It is inconceivable to say the least that a person who has enjoyed a benefit of acquiring interest in a subject matter of suit pending before the court, and has failed to fulfill the obligation required of him in that transaction, can complain that the court, upon whose order he acquired the interest, cannot make an order against him compelling him to discharge his obligation.”
ORDER OF COURT – RATIONALE FOR PRECLUDING A COURT FROM MAKING AN ORDER AGAINST A NON-PARTY
“Needless to say that the position of law precluding a court from making an order against a non-party is hinged on the inviolable doctrine of natural justice and principle of fair hearing, which demands that a party must be heard before a case against him is determined. See The Nigerian Navy & Ors V Navy Capt. D. O. Labinjo (2012) 1 SCM 138 at 159, where the Supreme Court, per PETER-ODILI, JSC held that “it is a basic fundamental principle in our system of justice that no one can have a decision entered against him without him being heard. That being the essence of the maxim audi alteram partem.” See Iwuoha & Anor V Ohazuruike & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40513 (CA).”
ORDER OF COURT- A VALID ORDER OF COURT MUST BE OBEYED
“It remains to be said that even though the Appellant is not a named party, it can be deemed to a privy to the proceedings before the lower court that the court can appropriately make an order against. See Kokoro-Owo & Ors V Lagos State Government & Ors (2001) LPELR – 1699 (SC). Considering the peculiar facts before us, it is my respectful view that the lower court was right to have granted the prayers sought by the 1st Respondent in its application. A valid order of court must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside. See Uwazuruike & Ors V A.G. Federation (2013) LPELR – 20392 (SC) where court held that:
“The well laid down position of the Law is that anyone who is served with, or becomes aware of a valid Order of Court should ensure that he obeys it in full. Failure to obey a valid Court order may amount to willful breach of it which could lead to contempt proceedings with serious consequences. See Mobil Oil Nig. Ltd. v. Assan 1995 8 NWLR pt. 412 p. 129.” It is certainly contempt of court to refuse or neglect to do an act required by a judgment or order or court within the time specified therein. See Abbas & Ors V Solomon & Ors (2001) LPELR – 23 (SC); Mohammed & Anor V Lasisi Sanusi Olawunmi & ORS (1991) LPELR – 1893 (SC).
ORDER OF COURT -WHETHER A COURT CAN MAKE ORDERS AGAINST NON-PARTY (IES) TO AN ACTION
“It is rudimentary law that a court should not make orders against persons who are not parties to an action: Cotecna Int’l Ltd. Vs Churchgate Nig. Ltd (2010)LPELR (897)1. This is anchored on the hornbook principle of law that no man should be condemned without being afforded a hearing”.
TECHNICALITY – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO TECHNICALITIES
“The approach of the Appellant’s counsel to this appeal derogates from the desired new approach to litigation which should focus more on justice than on Technicality. The Courts are Courts of Justice not of Technicality; Counsel are Ministers in the Temple of Justice, not the Temple of Technicality. The Appellant was duly heard before the lower court made the order. For it to be contended that the Appellant should have been first made a party to an action in which it is neither a necessary, proper or desirable party(See Green vs Green(1987) LPELR (1338) 1 AT 16-17) is with due deference taking technicality to …”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
