ROBERT IGHENE AND TEO ORS V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC AND ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-06) Legalpedia 82839 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

Thu Jun 22, 2023

Suit Number: CA/L/1225A/2015

CORAM

C.E.NWOSU-IHEME JCA

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPER JCA

Muslim Sule Hassan JCA

PARTIES

ROBERT IGHENE

MARTIN LADEJOBI

ANTHONY ELEBEKE

APPELLANTS

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC

NIGERIAN AIRFORCE (NAF)

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (CBN)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, LIMITATION LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Cross Appellants were the 1st –3rd Applicants, while the 1st to 3rd Respondents were the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the trial Court.

The contention of the 1st to 3rd Cross Appellants by their affidavit evidence supporting their motion is basically that they are beneficiaries of a judgment obtained against the 1st Cross Respondent upon the enforcement of their fundamental right in the sum of N9,000,000.00 in the year 2001.

That after obtaining the judgment, the 1st Cross Respondent refused to pay up the N9,000,000.00 until they took out a garnishee proceedings attaching the funds of the 1st Cross Respondent in the 2nd Cross Respondent’s bank wherein the Trial court made an order absolute attaching the fund of the 1st Cross Respondent in the 2nd Cross Respondent’s bank to the tune of N9,000,000.00

The Court held that they are statutorily entitled to interest on their judgment sum but is valid only till the liquidation of the judgment which happened in 2007. This decision is the subject of this Cross Appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the trial Court was right not to have ordered under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Lagos State the 71/2 % and 10% per annum rates of interest from 4/10/2000 – 15/6/07 when the judgment Debt of N9 Million was recovered and fully paid respectively and thereafter 10% per annum rate of interest from 16/6/07 till the entire cumulative compound interests ordered by the Rules are paid by the Respondents?

Ø Whether the 2nd Cross Respondent’s written Address and counter affidavit of 11/9/12 were competent for the determination of the Cross Appellants’ motion of 2/7/12 for post judgment interest?

Whether in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e ) and (6) of the Limitation Laws of Lagos State, 2003, the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Cross Appellants’ suit No: M/619/2012: Robert Ighene & 2 Ors vs. Nigeria Air Force (NAF) & 2 Ors and award post judgment interest in their favor in respect of the judgment debt which accrued on the 4th of October, 2000

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN RELATION TO ISSUES OF JURISDICTION

But the law is settled that once issue of jurisdiction is raised, it must first be settled before delving into the merit of the matter. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

LIMITATION LAW – WHEN THE LIMITATION LAW PROVIDES A TIME FRAME FOR BRINGING AN ACTION

Section 8 (1) (e) and (6) of the Lagos State Limitation Law provides as follows:

(1) The following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six (6) years on which the cause of action accrued

(e) Action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment other than:

A penalty or forfeiture or sum by way of forfeiture;

A sum due to a registered company by any member under the article of association;

iii. An amount recoverable against concurrent wrong-doer under any civil liability for the time being in force relating to concurrent wrong-doers.

Arrears of interest in respect of any debt will not be recovered after the expiration of six (6) years from the date on which the interest became due.” – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

PERIOD OF LIMITATION – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN RELATION TO PERIOD OF LIMITATION

The law does not give any Court the discretion to extend this period of limitation. The unfortunate and inevitable effect is that the Cross-Appeal stands dismissed. – Per Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, JCA

CROSS-APPEAL – NATURE OF CROSS-APPEAL IN RELATION TO THE MAIN APPEAL

On the nature of a cross-appeal in relation to the main appeal. The position of the law is clearly established in UNITY BANK V. BOUARI (2008) LPELR-3411 (SC) as follows:

“While I concede that a cross appeal is an independent appeal, having a life of its own in the appellate process, it could have some affinity with the main appeal as they criss-cross. There are instances where a decision of the main appeal affects and in fact disposes of the crux or fulcrum of the cross appeal. In such situations, it will be merely repetitive and will not serve any useful purpose for an appellate court to go over the arguments raised by the cross appellant in his brief. In such situations, and in order to avoid repetition and superfluity, an appellate court has the option to dismiss a cross appeal summarily in the way the Court of appeal did in this appeal.” Per TOBI, J.S.C – Per Y. B. Nimpar, JCA