CORAM
LEWIS CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
PARTIES
EMESPO J. CONTINENTAL LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff sued the defendants for shortage in the delivery of its goods shipped from France. He has sued CMB S. A. (The owners of M. V. Concordia) while CMB S.A is not the owner of the vessel. He sought to join the respondent (the real owner) as a 3rd defendant after the limitation period. ?
HELD
It was held that this is not a case of misnomer as the plaintiff has sued a non-existing person.
ISSUES
1. Whether on the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Plaintiff/Appellant had not established a case of a misnomer. 2. Whether the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal on the issues for determination formulated by the parties before it and the manner in which that Court considered the appeal did not prejudice the case of the Respondent (now Appellant) resulting in a miscarriage of justice
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“Authorities abound on the essence of issues raised for determination in parties briefs of argument. Issues are meant to flow from the grounds of appeal in an appeal, and where they do not so flow, they become incompetent and will be struck out by the court.”… MUHKTAR JSC
TEST FOR DETERMINING A MISNOMER
“A crucial factor in determining whether what happened was misnomer or not is whether there is an existing entity which has been given wrong name such wrong name not being the name of another entity”. MUHKTAR JSC.
CASES CITED
1. Dennis Njemanze v. Shell B.P. Port Harcourt 1966 1 All N.L.R., 2. Nteogwuile v. Otuo (2001) 16 NWLR Part 238 page 58, 3. Olowosogo v. Adebanjo 1988 4 NWLR Part 88 page 275. 4. Alhaji Kokoro-Owo and 6 Ors. v. Lagos State Government and 4 Ors (2001) 11 NWLR part 723 page 237, 5. U.A.C. Nigeria Ltd v. Global Transport S.A. 19965 NWLR part 448 page 291, 6. Nnaji v. Ede 1996 8 NWLR part 466 page 332.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE