CORAM

---

Uchechukwu Onyemenam Justice of the Court of Appeal

Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiorah Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION

2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION

APPELLANTS 

---

IKENNA OKEKE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DAMAGES, PUBLIC OFFICERS' LIABILITY, JURISDICTION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case arose from a judgment delivered by the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by T.J. Tsoho, CJ. The Respondent, a legal practitioner, was retained to recover debts owed to Wema Securities and Finance Plc, a company undergoing court-ordered liquidation pursuant to Federal High Court Lagos order dated 21st November, 2011 in Suit No. FHC/L/CP/720/2011. While pursuing debt recovery against Mustadrak Contracts Ltd, the debtor company obtained a search report dated 12th February, 2020 from the Corporate Affairs Commission stating that Wema Securities and Finance Plc had been wound up and dissolved. Based on this report, Mustadrak Contracts Ltd petitioned both the Nigerian Bar Association and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, alleging fraudulent conduct against the Respondent for representing a supposedly non-existent company. The Respondent was subsequently summoned by the NBA in June 2020 and later detained by the EFCC on August 17, 2020. Though the CAC issued a retraction of their earlier search report, the Respondent sued for damages at the Federal High Court which awarded him N3,000,000 as compensation.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

2. The judgment delivered on December 15, 2021, by Hon. Justice J.T. Tsoho, CJ in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1539/2020 was affirmed.

3. The Court held that the Federal High Court had proper jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

4. The Court determined that the action was not statute-barred as it was filed within the three-month limitation period from the date of EFCC detention.

5. The award of N3,000,000.00 as damages was upheld as neither excessive nor arbitrary.

6. Costs of N500,000.00 was awarded in favor of the Respondent.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in assuming jurisdiction over the case of the respondent after finding it was a case in the realm of tort of negligence.?

2. Whether the case of the respondent at the lower Court, particularly as it related to the petition to the Nigerian Bar Association and the wrong purported suffered therefrom, was not statute barred, stale and hence incompetent.?

3. Whether the respondent established any case to be entitled to the relief sought and granted by the lower Court.?

4. Whether the respondent established by credible evidence any legal wrong or injury upon which the learned trial judge granted him compensatory damages and if so, whether the quantum of damages granted was not arbitrary and/or excessive.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION – CONSIDERATION OF ORIGINATING PROCESSES:

---

“In the determination of the case placed before the Court in order to establish jurisdiction of the trial Court it is the statement of claim that a Court should look at and consider” – Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S JURISDICTION – INTERPRETATION OF COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT:

---

“The first question that was presented for the determination of the lower Court which is on whether the interpretation of Section 454 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower Court by virtue of Section 251(1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION PERIOD – DETERMINATION OF CAUSE OF ACTION:

---

“This action was instituted on the 17th day of November, 2020 which is on the dot of the three months allowed by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act going by the date of 17th August, 2020 when the Respondent answered the EFCC invitation and was arrested and detained and later released on bail.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE:

---

“The Appellants were more interested in challenging the competence of the case and not the merits of the case… there does not seem to be a defence on the merits that the defendants proffered for consideration by this Court.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

AWARD OF DAMAGES – CONSEQUENCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR:

---

“I however find that the Defendants by erroneously issuing the search report of 12th February, 2020 unleashed, much like a domino effect, a chain of consequences which occasioned untold hardship, emotional stress and embarrassment to the person of the Plaintiff.” – Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL – LIMITATION OF COUNSEL’S ADDRESS:

---

“It is not for learned counsel for the Appellants to make a case in his brief of argument which the Appellants failed to make in their processes at the trial Court. The address of counsel no matter how brilliant cannot be a substitute for evidence which is lacking in the trial.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

ANCILLARY JURISDICTION – POWER TO AWARD DAMAGES:

---

“Even if one wants to stretch the claim for N3,000,000.00 damages made by the Respondent, as the Appellants wants to do to drag it into the realm of tort, that claim is ancillary and flows from the principal declaratory reliefs.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

DETERMINATION OF CAUSE OF ACTION – HOLISTIC READING OF AFFIDAVIT:

---

“It is the entire affidavit that would be read holistically to get a harmonious idea of the facts alleged by the Respondent as constituting the cause of action.” – Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – REASONABLENESS OF AWARD:

---

“Certainly, in the light of this finding by the trial Court, it only begs the issue that the Respondent should be entitled to compensation… the award of N3,000,000.00 made by the lower Court is not excessive or arbitrary.” – Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

CONTINUING INJURY – EFFECT ON LIMITATION PERIOD:

---

“It is obvious that the cause of action is not only the query from the Nigerian Bar Association as the effect of the search report which was the basis for the petition against the Respondent continued when the EFCC invited and detained the Respondent.”– Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ESTABLISHMENT OF INJURY:

---

“The Appellants did not challenge or dispute this fact in their defence via the counter affidavit… The Respondent was categorical that he was detained by the EFCC when he answered their invitation on 17th day of August, 2020 and was later released.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR – CONSEQUENCES AND LIABILITY:

---

“As a matter of fact, the Appellants subsequent retraction of the search report is self admission that the search report was made in error and without basis.”- Per Peter Chudi Obiorah, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004

3. Public Officers Protection Act

4. Court of Appeal Act

5. Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT