FIRST GUARANTEE PENSION LTD V NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

FIRST GUARANTEE PENSION LTD V NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION & ANOR

GOKE OLAOLU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
May 1, 2025
SEBASTIAN ADIGWE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
May 1, 2025
GOKE OLAOLU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
May 1, 2025
SEBASTIAN ADIGWE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
May 1, 2025
Show all

FIRST GUARANTEE PENSION LTD V NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 41417

In the Court of Appeal

Tue May 19, 2015

Suit Number: CA/L/16/2012

CORAM


REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


FIRST GUARANTEE PENSION LTD  APPELLANTS


1. NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION

2. THE ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant filed a motion on notice before the court praying for an order striking out the Notice of Appeal and all other court processes filed by the law firm of Babajide Koku & Co putatively on behalf of the Appellant. However, this application was contested by the said law firm of Babajide Koku & Co. Prior to the filing of this application one Chief Orlando Ojo was a director of the Appellant but due to some irregularities in the company the 1st Respondent caused an investigation to be carried out. However, before the outcome of the investigation, the said Chief Orlando Ojo and one Mr. Nze Chidi Duru resigned from the employment of the Appellant. Soon after their resignation, the 1st Respondent also removed them as directors of the Appellant. The said Chief Orlando Ojo filed processes in court without the instruction of the Appellant having ceased to be a director of the Appellant. Upon the instruction of the Appellant, this motion was filed to withdraw the processes filed by the said Chief Orlando Ojo as the Appellant has no issue or dispute with the Respondents.{C}{C}{C}.


HELD


Application Granted


ISSUES


Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the application dated 28th February 2012 ought to be granted


RATIONES DECIDENDI


COMPANY SECRETARY – A COMPANY SECRETARY CAN ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY WHEN AUTHORISED


“The company secretary can when authorized act on behalf of the company.” PER Y.B. NIMPAR, J.C.A


REPRESENTATION BY A COUNSEL – THE COURT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE CHOICE OF COUNSEL REPRESENTING A PARTY


“The court has no business interfering with the choice of counsel to represent a party.”PER Y.B. NIMPAR, J.C.A


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Company and Allied Matters Act


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.