Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 62026

In the Court of Appeal

Fri Mar 21, 2014

Suit Number: CA/L/164M/10

CORAM

PARTIES

ASOL NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS

ACCESS BANK NIG PLC RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant  (as claimant in the court below ) instituted an action against the Respondent ( as Defendant ) at the trial court  for payment of the sum of N17, 492,081.11 (Seventeen Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Eighty-one Naira, Eleven Kobo) being due and payable to the Claimant as money had and received its use and benefit, the sum of N1, 101,988,566.94  as special damages for the wrongful dishonor of the Claimant’s cheques by the Defendant, and the defalcation by the Defendant of the Claimant’s said current account in the sum of N17, 492,081.11, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from further defalcating the Claimant’s current account in the said amount of N17, 492,081.11 (Seventeen Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Two Thousand, Eighty One Naira, Eleven Kobo) or any other sum whatsoever standing to the credit thereof and from the continued conversion of the Claimant’s funds. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the Appellant in the said sum with interest therein, the Respondent having admitted owing the Appellant the said sum of N17, 492,081.11 (Seventeen Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Eighty-one Naira, Eleven Kobo)  in its pleadings. The court however ordered that the sum be kept with the Chief Registrar. Consequently, the Appellant brought an application for an order of the trial court directing or instructing the Chief Registrar to pay the Claimant/Judgment Creditor the amount awarded in the judgment which had being kept in his custody. The trial Court refused the Appellant’s application on the ground that the said judgment was not in respect of the substantive suit. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court the appellant has lodged the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Struck Out

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

STARE DECISIS- DOCTRINE OF

“By the doctrine of stare decisis, the position of the Supreme Court is in the position of the law, to be followed by this court and the courts below.” PER BAGE, J.C.A

ADMITTED FACTS-NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

“The law is already trite that, anything admitted, need no further proof.” PER BAGE, J.C.A

SIGNING OF COURT PROCESSES -REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 2(1) AND 24 OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

“The words employed in drafting Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act are simple and straight forward. The literal construction of the law is that legal practitioners who are animate personalities should sign court processes and not a firm of legal practitioners which is inanimate and cannot be found in the roll of the Supreme Court.” PER BAGE, J.C.A

CASES CITED

Adewunmi Vs. Westex (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 32) 767Braithwaite Vs. Skye Bank Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346)Cappa & Dalbeto VS. Akintola (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 822) 49Cole V. Martins (1968) 1 ALL NLR 16, (1968) SCNLR 215Emmanuel Okafor  & Ors V. Augustine Nweke & Ors (2001) 10 NWLR 9 (PT 1043) 521.First Bank of Nigeria Plc & Anor V. Alh, Salmanu Maiwadu & Ors (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444 at 483Gov. of Oyo State V. Folayan (1995) 95 CNJ 50Moshesha General Merchants V. NSL (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 55) 100Nigerian Bottling Company Plc V. Stephen Oboh (2000) 9 WRN 114Ogunaike Vs. Oyayemi (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 760Owata V. Anyigor (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 276) 380?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. The Legal Practitioners Act CAP LII Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

2. Rules of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, CAP. S6, Laws of Lagos 2003 and?

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT