CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MRS MINNIE AJUWEDE IGBRUDE APPELLANTS

---

391287013970001. ECOBANK LTD2. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA 3. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION4. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant had an existing margin facility approved by the Respondent bank then Oceanic bank which later went bad. The facilities was to trade in shares and one BFCL was trading on behalf of the bank. The facility was not managed properly and the Appellant incurred heavy losses and being a loan facility, she was called upon to redeem same hence, she instituted an action before the Investment and Securities Tribunal as well as the Federal High Court claiming declarations for the margin facility to be declared void, a reversal repayment, and payment for illegal misappropriation and exemplary and aggravated damages and interest of 21% and damages against same Defendants for breach of contract, failure to monitor the facility, for misappropriation, conversion and exemplary and aggravated damages respectively. A preliminary objection was filed by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal to determine the issues placed before it. The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to determine the case given the issue of margin facility and parties before the Tribunal and that the Appellant’s claims do not qualify to be considered as a capital market dispute. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal filed a Notice of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Investment and Securities Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the issues placed before the tribunal. Whether this case is an abuse of court processes as contemplated in the Supreme Court case of TOMTEC (NIG) LTD v FHS [2009] 18 NWLR (PT 1173) 358? Whether the letter dated 26th August 2013 which was equally sent to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondent is a valid pre-action notice in the circumstances of this case.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION

---

“Jurisdiction is so important that it is fundamental and goes to the competence of the court or tribunal. See UBA V Davandy Finance And Securities Ltd (2015) LPELR-25769 (CA). It is also the authority which a court has to decide matters before it or to take cognisance of matters presented before it for its decision. See the Ndeyo V Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11; Dipaianlong V Daroiye (2007) 4 SC (PT111)118; Tetrazinne Foods Ltd V Abbacon Investment Ltd& Ors (2015) LPELR – 25007(CA).” –

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS- NATURE OF AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

“Abuse of court process has been defined in a host of cases and in different scenarios but the most direct is the improper use of legitimate court process and the effect is liable to dismissal. It is a fundamental defect which is not an irregularity that can be pardon it leads to a dismissal of the process. See Ogboru & Anor V Uduaghan & ORS (2010) LPELR – 3938 (CA); Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi V INEC (supra); Igbeke V Okadigbo & Ors (2013) LPELR – 20664 (SC).” –

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – CONDITIONS FOR ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

“All the conditions for abuse of court process are present. There is multiplicity of actions in different venues; same opponents on same subject matter, on same issues. See Allanah & Ors V Kpolokwu & Ors (2016) LPELR-40724 (SC).
“The point was made clearer in the case of Ogoeijor V Ogoejiofor (2006) 3 NWLR (996) 206 where SANUSI, JSC held that:
“…these features are: (i) filling of multicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues or numerous actions on the same matter between the same parties even there is in existence, aright to commence the action (ii) Instituting different Courts even though on different on different grounds (iii) Where two or more similar, processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right for instance, a cross appeal and a Respondent’s notice (vi) Where two actions are instituted in court the second action is prima facie vexatious and an abuse of courts process…”-

---

PRE-ACTION NOTICE- REQUIREMENT OF PRE-ACTION NOTICE TO A CORPORATION

---

“A pre-action notice in a statue is mandatory and must be complied with. It is tantamount to a condition precedent to the filing of an action; it also must be definitive and contain relevant facts to the intending action. See Zamfara State Goverment & Anor V Unity Bank Plc& Anor; Amadi V Nnpc (2000) 10 NWLR (PT 674) 76; Peter V NNPC (supra).
Section 289 (1) of the ISA is reproduced below:
“A person aggrieved by any action or decision of the commission under this Act, may institute an action in the tribunal or appeal against such decision within the period stipulated under this act: Provided that the aggrieved person shall give to the commission 14 days notice in writing of his intention to institute an action or appeal against its decision.”

---

PRE-ACTION NOTICE- EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT ON PRE-ACTION NOTICE

---

“Where a statute states out requirements to be met, a failure or incomplete obedience will render such an act incompetent. See Udoeka & Ors V Isikoboo & Ors (2012) LPLER – 9690(CA).
In the case of Okereke V Yar’adua & Ors (2008) 12 NWLR (PT 1100) 95 it was stated per ONNOGHEN, JSC that:
“…where legislation lays down a procedure for doing a thing there should be no other method of doing it…”
I am fortified in my thoughts through the dictum of EKPE, JCA in the case of Ikeduru Local Goverment Area V Barr. Kenneth C Uzoechi (2013) LPELR – 22511 (CA) where he held that:
“Regulations of the right of access to court abound in the rules of procedure and are legitimate…In a situation where a pre-action notice is prescribed by an enactment, where the requirement of the notice is that it should be served on a particular person, service on any person other than the person stipulated is a non-compliance with the provision.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Act, 2010|Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2009|Investment Security Act 2007|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---