CORAM

PARTIES

COSCHARIS MOTORS LLTD? APPELLANTS

CAPITAL OIL AND GAS LTDMR IFEANYI PATRICK UBAHACCESS BANK PLS? RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Plaintiffs filed an action against the Appellant at the Federal High Court whereas he claimed various reliefs against the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent. The Respondent also filed a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction which was heard and the trial court ruled granting an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent from interfering with the assets of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, pending the determination of the suit. The Appellant subsequently filed two motions, praying the lower court inter alia to dismiss the entire suit for want of jurisdiction. When the Appellant’s applications came up for hearing, the Respondents’ counsel applied for a short adjournment to enable him to respond to the applications of the Appellant in the suit. On the adjourned date, the Appellant moved its motion challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel sought to tender from the bar an order of the English Court Suit No. 2012, Folio 1300 Access Bank Plc v Rofos Navigation Ltd & 5 Ors before submitting viva voce that the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were in breach of the order of the lower court made earlier. He thereafter applied for an order restraining the Appellant from enforcing the order made by the English Court. This was vehemently opposed by the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent. The trial court in a considered ruling admitted the copy of the order of the English Court and made other orders, the basis of which the Appellant has filed an appeal against the ruling of the lower court before this court. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection urging the court to strike out and/or dismiss the Appellant’s appeal on grounds that the said appeal is argumentative, incompetent and does not arise from the decision of the lower court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

?    Whether the Learned trial court was right in granting injunctive reliefs against the Appellant based solely on oral application made by the counsel to the Respondents. (Ground 5)?    Whether the trial court was right in law when it made orders directing the Appellant to carry out certain decisions of the trial court in relation to case No. 2012 Folio. Access Bank Plc v Rofos Navigation & 5 Ors pending at the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court London when it was obvious from the record before the court that the Appellant was not a party to the said London suit. (Grounds 1 and 6)?    Whether the Learned trial judge acted within the ambit of the law when he found as a fact that the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent jointly and severally flouted its subsisting orders made on 12/11/12 and 21/1/13 respectively when there was no shred of evidence placed before him to warrant such a finding. (Ground 7)?    Whether the trial court was right in law when it suo motu ordered the Appellant to discontinue the suit in London in case No 2012 Folio 1300: Access Bank Plc v Rofos Navigation & 5 Ors and all other proceedings whatsoever and wheresoever in the world where the Respondents have business interests; when non (sic) of the parties to the suit before him applied for such an order. (Ground 3)?    Whether the trial court was right in law when it in essence decided the Appellant’s motion on notice to set aside the order of injunction made by the trial court on the 12th day of November 2012, when the said motion had not been canvassed and/or moved in the open court. (Ground 2)

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)Court of Appeal Rules, 2011Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT