CORAM
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Binta Fatima Zubairu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Uwabunkeonye Onwosi Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
1. MR. BOHALEE NIGERIA LIMITED
2. MR. OLAKUNLE OLALEYE
APPELLANTS
1. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA
2. MASTAY INVESTMENT LIMITED
3. IFARAJIMI OMOTAYO
4. IFARAJIMI ABIMBOLA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EQUITY, MORTGAGE LAW, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, JURISDICTION, FEDERAL LEGISLATION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered by Honourable Justice U.N. Agomoh on June 26, 2023, in Suit No: FHC/IB/CS/41/2019. The 1st Respondent (Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria – AMCON) commenced the suit by a Writ of Summons dated and filed March 28, 2019, seeking recovery of outstanding indebtedness and forfeiture of property situated along Yinka Kalu Crescent, New Oko Oba Agege Lagos, registered as No. 53 at page 53 in volume 2007H of the Lagos State Nigeria Land Registry Office, Lagos.
By Court order made on June 27, 2019, the 1st Respondent was granted interim possession, control and disposal of the property. On March 2, 2021, leave was granted to the 1st Respondent to amend its Writ to reflect the correct name in the extant law on Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria. The 1st Respondent called one witness and tendered eight exhibits (Exhibits 1-8A), while the Appellants’ counsel tendered no exhibits.
The central dispute concerned competing equitable interests over the same property. The 1st Respondent inherited an equitable mortgage over the property which was created in 2002 and purchased in 2010, while the 1st-2nd Appellants obtained an equitable interest in the same property in August 2013. The Appellants pleaded their status as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the property.
The trial court granted judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent, awarding the sum of N320,914,598.93 as outstanding indebtedness, interest at 15% per annum from February 1, 2021 until judgment, post-judgment interest at 10% per annum, final forfeiture of the property, and costs of N65,000,000.00. Dissatisfied with this decision, the 1st-2nd Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on July 5, 2023, setting out 4 grounds of appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
2. The judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, sitting at Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered by Honourable Justice U.N. Agomoh on June 26, 2023, in Suit No: FHC/IB/CS/41/2023, was affirmed.
3. The Court held that where equities are equal, the first in time prevails, and the 1st Respondent’s equitable interest, created in 2002 and purchased in 2010, was superior to the Appellants’ interest acquired in August 2013.
4. The Court ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the claim, rejecting challenges based on misnomer and limitation of actions.
5. No order as to costs was made.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the learned trial judge was right in granting the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent despite the Appellants’ plea and evidence supporting their status as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the property situate at Yinka Osinkalu Crescent, New Oko-Oba, Agege, Lagos, registered as No. 53 at page 53 in volume 2007H of the Lagos State Land Registry, Ikeja Lagos.
2. Whether the judgment of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence.
3. Whether or not the lower Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COMPETING EQUITABLE INTERESTS – WHERE EQUITIES ARE EQUAL, THE FIRST IN TIME PREVAILS
The age long principle of law is that where there are competing interests, the first in time prevails, or where two equities are equal, the first in time prevails.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
FIRST IN TIME PRINCIPLE – APPLICATION TO COMPETING INTERESTS IN LAND
Where persons with competing interests to land or their predecessors-in-title purport to derive their title from a common grantor, the first in time will prevail. The Latin maxim is qui prior est tempore portior est jure, meaning he who is first has the strongest title. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE – IRRELEVANCE WHERE FIRST IN TIME PRINCIPLE APPLIES
Therefore, the argument that evidence abound in support of the Appellants equitable title is misconceived and irrelevant. Also the argument that Appellants are innocent purchasers without notice cannot divest the 1st Respondents title which is supported by law and therefore, the principle of innocent purchaser without notice cannot apply to divest it of title.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
DUE DILIGENCE IN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS – CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO CONDUCT PROPER SEARCH
In any case, the Appellant did not conduct a diligent search on the legal title of the property before purchasing same. They are merely hiding behind the equitable principle to avoid the obvious tardiness in conducting a diligent search. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
MISNOMER – DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRONG NAME AND WRONG IDENTITY
It is my humble view that there appears here to be a general error regarding the issue of juristic personality and one of misnomer of parties, especially in a legal process. A misnomer has been described as occurring where the natural or legal person exists but a wrong name is used to sue. My Lords, where there is a mistake with regard to the name of a litigant in an action, such a mistake is described as a misnomer. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
CURABLE MISDESCRIPTION – EFFECT OF ADDING LETTER ‘S’ TO AMCON’S NAME
The 1st Respondent initiated the suit in the name of ‘Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria’ (AMCON)’. The statutory name of the 1st Respondent is ‘Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria’ vide SECTIONS 1(1) OF ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA ACT, 2010. The 1st Respondent in adding ‘s’ to its title is, in my humble view, a curable misdescription or misnomer. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
WAIVER OF OBJECTION – EFFECT OF PARTICIPATING IN PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PROTEST
The Appellants did not protest nor claim to have been misled by the addition of the letter ‘s’ at the Court below. Obviously, no miscarriage of justice was occasioned in this case. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
SUPREMACY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION – AMCON ACT OVER STATE LIMITATION LAWS
In the circumstance of this case, the Limitation Law of Oyo State does not apply to Federal agencies. What applies are relevant Federal Legislations and what is applicable at the time of the suit was pending at the Court below was the ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT, 2019, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA. Being an Act of the National Assembly, it covers the field on the subject and supersedes any local legislation. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
AMCON MATTERS – INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION STATUTES
Any statute of limitation of a state or federal Capital Territory or any like statute or rule or practice directions of any Court limiting the time within which an action may be commenced does not apply or operate to bar or invalidate any claim brought to recover a debt or enforce any security or obligation of a guarantor of or surety in connection with an eligible bank asset. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS – SUPREMACY OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LAWS
If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a state is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.– Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
SPECIFIC LAWS OVER GENERAL LAWS – APPLICATION TO AMCON MATTERS
It is instructive to restate here that this Court has held that where a specific provision of a statute is subsequent to a general provision, the specific provision of the statute will prevail… Therefore, the latter provisions override the former for generalibus specialia dorogant (i.e. special things derogate from general things). – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
PROCEDURAL NATURE OF LIMITATION LAW – RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
The Limitation Law is certainly procedural, setting out clearly time frame within which an action must be brought. Unlike substantive law, it is retroactive in nature and such statutes on this all-important subject must be read as a whole. As such whether specifically stated or not in such a statute, it must be read retroactively. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
TECHNICALITY VERSUS SUBSTANCE – REJECTION OF TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS
The Court will not allow a party to strike around for any tenuous twig of technicality at the detriment of justice. To allow such act to occur would be contrary to the principles of law, equity and good conscience…– Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Act, 2010
3. Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Act, 2019
4. Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023)
5. Limitation Law of Oyo State Nigeria 2000
6. Court of Appeal Rules