TOHIR FOLORUNSHO ISMAILA vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
April 13, 2025MORTGAGES PHB LTD & ANOR v. DR OLADIPO OLASIMBO & ORS
April 13, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 17113
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Nov 24, 2017
Suit Number: CA/L/823/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
1.MR. DAUDA SHANUSI2.MISS ISIWAT SHANUSI3.MR. ILIASU SHANUSI4. MISS NURAT SHANUSI(For themselves and the children and Estate of late Alhaji Raji Shanusi) APPELLANTS
1. ALHAJI M. OLAIDE ODUGBEMI(For herself and the Estate of late Alhaji Nosiru Odugbemi)2. ALHAJI KAMORU-DEEN OLANREWA-JU SHOWEMIM-O RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimants/Appellants instituted an action before the High Court of Lagos State against the Respondents claiming injunctive orders and damages in respect of properties situate at Akoka, Ojodu and Surulere. The Appellants, long after pleadings had been filed, exchanged and amended, filed an application seeking for an order setting aside, or holding in abeyance the Defendant’s court processes, an order setting aside the ruling of the court delivered and dated 10th June,2011 granting leave to the Defendants to amend their Statement of Defence and other ancillary processes on grounds that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and countenance the Defendants court processes on which they have refused and/or failed to pay statutory default fees, to amend court processes which are non-existent among other grounds. The lower court in a considered ruling dismissed the application. Dissatisfied, the Appellants have appealed against same.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Ø Whether in the circumstances that the Defendants/Respondents refused to pay the relevant default fees on their court processes in the court below, comprising (i) Memorandum of Appearance dated and filed 17th November, 2008; (ii) Statement of Defence, (iii) List of Witnesses to be called, (iv) Written Statements on Oath, (v) List of Documents with attached exhibits, all dated and filed 13th January 2009, the court below was wrong not to have set aside and struck out such court processes, or alternatively, held them in abeyance until the Defendants/Respondents pay their unpaid relevant default fees? Ø Whether in the circumstances of the legal impossibility of there being in existence any court processes known and identified as the ‘Claimants’ Joint Statement of Defence’, the court below was wrong not to have pronounced upon and set aside, but thereby confirmed its order in the ruling of the court below court dated and delivered on 10th June, 2011 extending the time to file such said ‘Claimants’ Statement of Defence’ which are liable to be set aside? Ø Whether in the circumstances that the Defendants/Respondents have never had any valid Statement of Defence and accompanying or ancillary court processes in this suit, the court below was wrong not to have pronounced upon and set aside the order in the ruling of the court below dated and delivered on 10th June, 2011 granting leave to the Defendants/Respondents to amend their Statement of Defence and other accompanying or ancillary processes, which order is liable to be set aside, and in consequence setting aside the Defendants/Respondents’ Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Amended Lists of Witnesses, Amended Statements on Oath of Witnesses, Amended Lists of Documents with attached Exhibits, all dated and filed 15th June, 2011 and 13 February, 2013? Ø Whether having regard to the averments of jus tertii (3rd party rights) in the Defendants/Respondents’ Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, raised in the Amended Statements of Defence dated and filed on 15th June 2011 and 13 February, 2013, the court below was wrong not to have pronounced upon and set aside, such averments in the pleading which are liable to be struck out from the proceedings of the court below in this Suit No. ID/276/2008? Ø Whether having regard to the omission to pronounce on salient decisive points of law raised by the Claimants/Appellants, the court below rightly or wrongly exercise its discretion when after dismissing all the reliefs claimed, awarded the cost of N20, 000.00 against the Claimants/Appellants in favour of the Defendant/Respondents
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED