U.T.C. NIGERIA PLC V. SAMUEL PETERS
March 27, 2025DR. O. M. AGADAS V. THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH & ANOR
March 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-02) Legalpedia 82681 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
KANO
Fri Feb 4, 2022
Suit Number: CA/K/78/2019
CORAM
Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
DANTATA FOODS & ALLIED PRODUCTS LIMITED
APPELLANTS
A.G. LEVENTIS (NIG.) PLC
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COMPANY LAW, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LANDLORD AND TENANT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff had claimed against the Defendant before the Kano State High Court, an order for immediate recovery and possession of the premises occupied by the Defendant known as Plot 33, Challawa Industrial Estate Kano, from the Defendant; an order directing an appropriate person or persons to enter the said Plot No. 33 Challawa Industrial Estate for the purpose of ejecting the Defendant therefrom and deliver vacant possession of the said premises to the Plaintiff; an order directing the Defendant to make an immediate payment of the arrears of rent of Nineteen Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only (N19,250,000), to the Plaintiff and mense profit at the cost of N229,167 per month and N91,666 per day, with effect from 1st February, 2017 till vacant possession is given to the Plaintiff and cost of the action.
When the matter came up for initial mention, in the absence of the Appellant, judgment was entered for Respondent in respect of the first and second reliefs, pursuant to Order 10 Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Court. This judgment was eventually set aside on the application of the Appellant who was there upon granted enlargement of time to file its defence. The Appellant filed a Counter claim seeking a declaration of Court that it is not the Tenant of the Plaintiff, damages and cost.
The trial court after considering the evidence and addresses of counsel, entered judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant and dismissed the Counter claim. Being dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant have lodged the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. “Whether a tenancy agreement and or lease ever came into existence between the Respondent and Appellant over the Respondent’s property situate at Plot 33 Challawa Industrial Estate, Kano, between the period of 1st February, 2010 to 31st January, 2017 to entitle the Respondent to the judgment of the trial Court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER A RESPONDENT CAN RAISE AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION OF APPEAL OUTSIDE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FORMULATED BY THE APPELLANT
“An Appeal is usually heard on the issues raised by the Appellant, and where a Respondent raises an Issue, it should fall in line with that of the Appellant, and as per the grounds of Appeal by Appellant. The Respondent’s issue should interrogate the said issue or grounds by Appellant, and put a lie to the claims (contest the claims) of the Appellant, except where there is need to concede to the issue, in the interest of justice. See the case of Emesonye Vs The State (2016) LPELR – 40549 (CA), where we held:
“We have stated several times, that a Respondent has no room to raise an issue for determination of appeal, outside the grounds of appeal, formulated by the Appellant, except, of course, he (Respondent) has cross-appealed, or raised a Respondent’s Notice, on the strange or fresh issue he proposed. See the case of Onuegbu & Ors v. Gov. of Imo State & Ors (2015) 8 CAR 224 at 240; (2015) LPELR – 25968 (CA); Anyalenkeya v. Anya & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40218 CA (page 20 thereof); Musa v. State (2014) LPELR – 22912 CA; (2014) 25 WRN 101”
See also Fayemi Vs Oni & Ors (2019) LPELR – 49291 (SC), where it was held:
“Where the Respondents have not filed a cross appeal, and have also not filed a notice of intention to rely on other grounds in urging the Court to sustain the decision against which the appeal lies, they cannot formulate issues outside the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant.”
– PER I. G.MBABA, J.C.A.
COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FINDINGS OF COURT – STATUS OF FINDINGS OF A COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST
“The law is trite that findings and decision of a Court not appealed against remain binding and conclusive. See Opara Vs Dowel Shlumberger Nig. Ltd & Anor (2006) LPELR – 2746 (SC):
“It is also settled law that where a party fails to appeal against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he cannot be heard to question the finding on appeal to the Supreme Court, the essence of an appeal is to have an opportunity to have one’s suit re-examined before a higher Court. In effect the failure of the appellant to appeal against the decision of the trial Court refusing an order of specific performance is that that decision remains binding and conclusive between the parties – see Alakija v. Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 1 at 4. In Ndiwe v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129 at 139-140 it was held by this Court that where the trial Court makes a finding of fact on a specific issue before it, such an issue should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal by the appellant who is challenging the finding of fact and it cannot be covered under the omnibus ground of appeal.” Per ONNOGHEN, JSC
See also Daniel Vs FRN (2015) LPELR – 24733 (SC):
“It is also interesting to note that the appellant did not appeal against the finding and holding by the Court below that from the record, the learned trial Judge did not fulfill the statutory condition precedent under Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The implication of this is that he is satisfied with the said finding and therefore bound by the said finding and holding. The appellant can then not be heard to now complain that the Court below did not take decision on the issue of discretion under Section 218. It is too late, to say the least, for him to now complain about that issue. See Uwazurike & Anor v. Nwachukwu & Anor (2012) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 534.” Per ARIWOOLA, JSC.
– PER I. G.MBABA, J.C.A.
ACQUISITION OF A COMPANY – WHETHER A PARTY WHO ACQUIRES A COMPANY MUST ACCEPT ITS LIABILITIES TOGETHER WITH ITS ASSETS
“Of course, one who acquires a company, enjoying its assets should also be responsible enough to accept its liabilities, as he cannot run away from the liabilities, in my opinion. See A.O. Afolabi & Ors Vs Western Steel Works Ltd & Ors (2012) LPELR – 9340 (SC), where it was held:
“The purchaser of a company buys its assets and liabilities. To prove to the satisfaction of the Court that a company had been bought by another company, the person who asserts must place before the Court, documents from the Corporate Affairs Commission to justify the assertion. Documents such as: (i) Instrument of transfer; (ii) Documents to show acquisition of shares of the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent (iii) Filing of relevant papers. In the absence of documentary evidence (above) credible evidence was led to show that the 3rd respondent acquired, or bought the 1st respondent. Such an issue is never resolved solely on testimony on oath. There must be documentary evidence to support oral testimony, thereby making oral testimony more credible. The appellants, as plaintiffs failed woefully to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by law. Section 146 of the Evidence Act provides for the well known principle of law that possession is prima facie proof of ownership. That is to say possession of the property in dispute (the 1st defendant company) is good title against anyone who cannot prove a better title. Section 146 of the Evidence Act is irrelevant in deciding whether a company was acquired by another company. Issues such as acquisitions, mergers are regulated by the companies and Allied Matters Act.” Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC.”
– PER I. G.MBABA, J.C.A.
TENANCY -DUTY OF A STATUTORY TENANT TO SATISFY ITS OBLIGATION UNDER A TENANCY
“Appellant was therefore a statutory tenant of the Respondent and liable to satisfy its obligations under the tenancy, until it yielded possession to Respondent. See the cases of Chiadi & Anor Vs Aggo (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt.1603) 175; Samuel Orhunhur & Anor Vs Terhumumi Iverver (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt.1439) 192”. PER I. G.MBABA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available