CORAM

PARTIES

MR. OLUMIDE BRAITHWAITE [substituted for Dr. Tunji Braithwaite (deceased) by order of court made on 13th April, 2016]MR. JOSEPH LOPEZ TAPIAMARITIMA SPAIN AFRICA LINESS.A. DOMACO HOLDINGS INC   APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Appellants as ‘Third Parties’ instructed the 1st Appellant to make a claim on their behalf against the Federal Government of Nigeria for the unlawful seizure and subsequent vandalisation of their 40,000 ton vessel. In compliance with the instruction, the 1st Appellant wrote several letters to some Government authorities. It was subsequently drawn to the 1st Appellant’s attention that the Respondent had collected the sum of S15 million US Dollars on behalf of the Third Parties as compensation in respect of the same claim. The 1st Appellant held a meeting with the Respondent where he was informed that an outstanding balance was still due from the Federal Government to the Third Parties and he was promised to be paid the sum of S125, 000.00 US Dollars out of the said balance. The Respondent reneged on his promise hence this action was commenced at the High Court of Lagos State to recover the sum being “money had and withheld” by the Respondent. Upon an application for joinder, the Third Parties were joined and pursuant to an application filed by the Third Parties, the court ordered the Respondent to render an account of the money received from the Federal Government on behalf of the Third Parties. The Respondent rendered the account which disclosed that he had remitted the entire compensation sum to the Third Parties. The trial court in its ruling entered judgment in the sum of S125, 000.00 with interest at the rate of 4% per annum in favour of the 1st Appellant against the Respondent and a sum of S625, 000.00 with interest at the rate of 4% per annum in favour of the Third Parties against the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Respondent filed a notice of appeal the same day at the trial court and upon a notice of preliminary objection filed at the instance of the 1st Appellant, the notice of appeal was struck out for being incompetent. Almost nine months later, the Respondent filed a fresh application for the trinity prayers to appeal against the decision of the trial court. The 1st Appellant however filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the proposed grounds of appeal and same was overruled. The application was granted by the lower court hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in granting the Respondent’s application for an order for extension of time to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal dated 12th June 2001?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Court of Appeal Rules, 1981 (as amended)Court of Appeal Rules, 2002Court of Appeal Rules 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT