BORNU HOLDING & CO. LTD V. ADAMA DIPCHARIMA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

BORNU HOLDING & CO. LTD V. ADAMA DIPCHARIMA

CITY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, LAGOS STATE.
August 8, 2025
ABOLADE AGBOOLA ALADE V. SALAWU JAGUN OLUKADE
August 8, 2025
CITY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, LAGOS STATE.
August 8, 2025
ABOLADE AGBOOLA ALADE V. SALAWU JAGUN OLUKADE
August 8, 2025
Show all

BORNU HOLDING & CO. LTD V. ADAMA DIPCHARIMA

Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 62151

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jan 30, 1976

Suit Number: SC. 291/1974

CORAM


ALEXANDER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


BORNU HOLDING & CO. LTD FANTA DIPCHARIMA AHMED TOM DIPCHARIMA FATIMA DIPCHARIMA (By their Guardian and next Friend Ahmed Tom Dipcharima) BINTU DIPCHARIMA APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

1st and 2nd respondent as members of a company commenced execution against the judgment debtor/applicant in respect of a particular matter. The judgment/debtor has brought an application before the court to restrain the 1st and 2nd respondent from further levying execution without the consent of the company. However, he proposed that he is ready to pay to the company which they (1st and 2nd respondent) have sued to protect.


HELD


It was held that the judgment debt is liable to be paid to the company since the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are merely protecting the interest of the company.


ISSUES


Whether or not the judgment debt is liable to be paid to the plaintiff company or 2nd and 3rd plaintiff.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


PAYMENT OF JUDGEMENT DEBT DUE TO COMPANY


judgment debt is payable not to the plaintiffs for their own personal benefit but to the company, as the real purpose of the action by the plaintiffs (who were no more than nominal plaintiffs suing on behalf of the company) was to protect the interests of the company… ALEXANDER, CJN


CASES CITED


Wallersteiner v.Moir (1975) 2 WLR 589

Spokes v. The Grosvenor and West End Railway Terminus Hotel Company, Limited (1897) 2 QB 124


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.