MARCUS UKAEGBU VS MARK NWOLOLO
May 28, 2025MALLAM YUSUF JIMOH VS MALLAM KARIMU AKANDE
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2009-01) Legalpedia 18244 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jan 23, 2009
Suit Number: SC 244/2006
CORAM
D MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
G A OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P O ADEREMI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
M S MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SAMUEL OSIGWE
(For himself and as representative of those who have registered to purchase shares in public companies under the privatization share purchase scheme) APPELLANT
APPELLANTS
1. PSPLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM LTD.
2. AFEX BANK PLC
3. FIRST BANK NIGERIA PLC
4. UNION BANK PLC 5. DIAMOND BANK PLC
6. STANDARD TRUST BANK PLC
7. HALLMARK BANK PLC
8. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC
9. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK
10. ALL STATES TRUST BANK PLC
11. HABIB BANK OF NIGERIA
12. OCEANIC BANK (NIGERIA) LTD
13. CONTINENTAL TRUST BANK
14. FSB INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC
(For themselves and as representatives of all financial intermediaries engaged in the peoples scheme as registration agents)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL – SLIP RULE – JURISDICTION – CAUSE OF ACTION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant in a class action for himself and as representative of those who have registered to purchase share in public companies under the PSP Loan Scheme, sued the respondents claiming that the respondents offered and sold shares to him in breach of certain provisions of the ISA. The tribunal struck out their action on the grounds that the respondents were agents of a disclosed principal.
The Court of Appeal struck out their appeal.The appellant in a class action for himself and as representative of those who have registered to purchase share in public companies under the PSP Loan Scheme, sued the respondents claiming that the respondents offered and sold shares to him in breach of certain provisions of the ISA. The tribunal struck out their action on the grounds that the respondents were agents of a disclosed principal. The Court of Appeal struck out their appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower court was right in upholding the decision of the Honourable Tribunal which struck out the respondents from the proceedings on the ground that as agents of a disclosed principal they are necessary parties to the proceedings.?
2. Whether the lower court was right in holding that the appellant failed to draw attention to the provisions of the Investment and Securities Act which excludes the applicability of the general principle of law of principal and agent to the facts and circumstances of this case, or any part of the Investment and Securities Act making the respondents directly liable as agents.?
3. Whether the lower court was right in upholding the Honourable Tribunal’s decision which granted the 1st respondent’s oral application to review the Tribunal’s previous ruling by further striking out the 1st respondent from the proceedings.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IMPORTANCE OF CAUSE OF ACTION
It is settled law that there must be a cause of action before an intending litigant can initiate any legitimate proceedings. A suit is aimed at vindicating some legal right or claim and such legal right can only arise when certain material facts arise. Per, Musdapher, JSC
WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES
It is only when facts establishing a civil right or obligation and facts establishing infraction or trespass on that right and obligation exist side by side, a cause of action is said to accrue. Per, Musdapher, JSC
DEFENDANT ACTING ON BHALF OF A DISCLOSED FOREIGN PRINCIPAL
A defendant acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal, incurs no liability even where the disclosed principal, is a foreigner. Per, Ogbuagu, JSC
APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS
This court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decision of the Tribunal, the jurisdiction of this court is limited to hear the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. Per, Musdapher, JSC
AMMENDMENTS UNDER THE ‘SLIP’ RULE
No exercise of the power of amendment under the “SLIP” RULE will be allowed to vary the operative and substantive, part of its judgment so as to substitute a different form. Issues relating to facts and law must never be subjected to an amendment by the judex once he has delivered the judgment. Per Aderemi, JSC
BREACH OF A RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Breach of a rule of practice and procedure does not render the proceedings a nullity but merely an irregularity Per, Musdapher, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Afolayan v. Ogunrinde [1990] 1 NWLR (Pt. 369) at 382
2. Ummuna v. Okwuriwe [1978] 11 NSCC 319
3. Adigun v. A.G. of Oyo State (No.2) [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt 56) 197.
4. Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines and Power & Anor. v. Akin Olugbade [1974] 1 ALL NLR 226.
5. Saude v. Abdullahi [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt. 116) 388
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
