RBF ENERGY RESOURCES LIMITED V. QUAD MARINE OIL AND GAS LIMITED & ANOR

CORAM

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI

OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO

PARTIES

1. RBF ENERGY RESOURCES LIMITED

2.ROSELINE ADA OSIGWE

3. BEN OSIGWE

APPELLANTS

1. QUAD MARINE OIL AND GAS LIMITED

2. ACCESS BANK PLC

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, JURISDICTION, APPEALS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal probes the correctness of the decision of the High Court of Lagos State (trial Court). The respondent was a high-profile customer of Intercontinental Bank Plc which metamorphosed into Access Bank Plc; a stranger to this appeal. The respondent, between May and July, 2008, supplied the first appellant with petroleum products to the tune of N198M which the appellants in collaboration with the officials of the Access Bank Plc, converted to their own use. The respondent alleged that the Access Bank Plc negligently allowed the appellants to make massive unauthorized withdrawals from its account with it. It further alleged that the Access Bank Plc was careless, reckless and observed unprofessional conducts over the respondent’s account which led to massive appropriation of its funds therein. Later on, the appellants admitted their fraud and indebtedness to the respondent such that they issued N120M cheque to defray the debt. The appellants refused to pay the admitted debt of N198M to the respondent. The respondent claimed that the acts of the appellants and Access Bank Plc subjected it to various economic distress, financial miasma, corporate insolvency, unabated hardship and stagnated economic growth. Sequel to that, the respondent besieged the trial court and sought for reliefs, the trial court granted prayers B and C in the cross-appellant’s suit. The appellants were aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial hence the appeal to this instant court.

HELD

Preliminary objection upheld; appeal struck out

ISSUES

Whether and having regards to the appellants’ notice of appeal dated and filed 26/4/19 as well as the current state of the law, this honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain and consider the appeal of the appellants as constituted.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – MEANING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

A preliminary objection is a specie of objection which, if sustained by a court, will render further proceedings in a matter unnecessary, see Abe v. UniIlorin (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 183; APC v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1462) 531; Jim-Jaja v. C.P, Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225; Petgas Resources Ltd. v. Mbanefo (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1601) 442; Ekemezie v. Ifeanacho (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 356; Ebebi v. Ozobo (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1810) 165. Per – Obande Festus Ogbuinya JCA.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN A PROCEEDING SHOULD BE DEALT WITH FIRST

For this reason, the law commands the court to deal first with a preliminary objection when raised in any proceedings, see Uwazurike v. A.-G., Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035)1; SPDCN Ltd v4’madi (2011)14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157; FBN Plc v. T.S.A. md. Ltd (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247; Okereke v. James (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 339; APC v. INEC (Supra); Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 357; Efet v. INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 423; Sa’eedv. Yakowa (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 133; Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113; SPDCN Ltd. v. Agbara (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 353; Agbaje v. INEC (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1501) 151; Allanah v. Kpolokwu (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 1; Umanah (Jnr.) v. NDIC (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256; Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142; Solumade v. Kuti (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1810) 31. Per – Obande Festus Ogbuinya JCA.