OLADIRAN SHYLLON V. JOHN OHONYON
May 1, 2025CAPTAIN Y. U. ZAKARI V. NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR
May 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 11151
In the Court of Appeal
Fri May 22, 2015
Suit Number: CA/L/236/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
STATOIL NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS
1 STAR DEEP WATER PETROLEUM LIMITED
2 FAMFA OIL LIMITED
3 PETROLEO BRASILEIRO NIGERIA LTD
4 TEXACO NIGERIA OUTER SHELF LIMITED
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts leading to this appeal is that the parties in this appeal and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) entered into an agreement referred to as the Agami Unit Agreement dated the 11th day of February 2005 for a joint development of the Agani field as a Unit Area. The Unit Area contains two tracts namely Tract 1 and Tract 2, and the agreement recognized that the tract participation could be changed by the process of Determination and Re-Determination. In 2009, a Determination process was carried out during which the tract participation of the parties was adjusted, later on, and precisely on the 27th of January 2012, the 1st Respondent invoked a Re-Determination process during which process certain technical disagreement arose among the parties as well as dispute concerning the interpretation of the Unit Agreement which centered on the admissibility of certain data being relied on by the 1st and 3rd Respondents in the re-determination process. The issue was referred to an expert, and on the 22nd of July 2013 it handed down its decision. Displeased by the decision of the expert, the Appellant first initiated arbitration proceedings against the Respondents, and also commenced an action against the Respondents by way of Originating Summons before the Federal High Court. The 1st – 4th Respondents filed a preliminary objection against the suit at the Federal High Court on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while the Appellant filed an application seeking an interim injunction restraining the Re-Determination process but the lower court however dismissed both the application of the Appellant and the Preliminary Objection of the 1st – 4th Respondents. The trial court also dismissed the substantive originating summons of the Appellants and being displeased by the decision of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed. The 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents have however raised a preliminary objection to the appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether in the light of all the affidavit evidence and all the materials placed before the Court below, the Court was wrong to have dismissed the Originating Motion dated 21st October 2013?
Whether the Learned Judge did not err in law and therefore abdicated the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to the Arbitral Tribunal when he refused to grant the injunctive reliefs sought pending arbitration on the ground that it will not be just to restrain parties who will be before an arbitral tribunal (Ground 4)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – AN APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE EVALUATION EVIDENCE OR DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT WHERE SAME IS PERVERSE
\“In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this Court has no business evaluating evidence or making findings of facts or indeed disturbing the findings of facts made by the trial court unless it is satisfied that the findings are perverse. The burden of proving the perversity rests on the Appellant”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – AIM OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
“The aim of an interlocutory injunction is to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the issue submitted for adjudication. It is an equitable remedy and is therefore not granted as a matter of course but at the discretion of the trial Judge which discretion as in all judicial discretions must be exercised judicially and judiciously having regard to all the facts and circumstances of each case. See Kotoye v. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419; Woluchem v. Wokoma (1974) 3 SC 153; Obeya Memorial Hospital v. Attorney General of the Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPORT OF THE PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL.
“With respect to particulars of grounds of appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the particulars of the ground of appeal are intended to highlight the complaint in the ground and to make it clear how the complaint is going to be canvassed in an attempt to demonstrate the flaw in the relevant aspect of the judgment. The particulars must not be independent of the complaint in the ground of appeal but ancillary to it.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
GROUND OF APPEAL – CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A GROUND OF APPEAL OUGHT TO BE STRUCK OUT
“The key consideration in determining whether a ground of appeal and/or its particulars ought to be struck out is whether such ground/particulars ably inform the Respondent and the Court of the nature of the Appellant’s complaints. Once the purpose is achieved all other allegations cannot constitute a basis for striking out the ground or the particulars.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
STARE DECISIS – POSITION OF FOREIGN CASES IN NIGERIAN COURTS.
“It is however pertinent to point out that foreign cases are merely persuasive and not authoritative and Nigerian courts are not bound to follow them. Holman Bros (Nigeria) Ltd v. Kigo (Nigeria) Ltd & Anor (1980) 8-11 SC (Reprint) 27; (1980) LPELR-1370(SC); Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 580. They are of persuasive authority where the context, facts and the law in question are identical to that in Nigeria, and there are no Nigerian cases on the point. INEC v. Nyako [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt 1262) 439 @ 507; Lijadu v Lijadu [1991] 1 NWLR (Part 169) 627 @ 648, B-D.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
“An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show:
1. That there is a serious question to be tried;
2. That damages cannot be adequate for the injury;
3. That the balance of convenience is on his side, that is that more justice will result in the grant of the application than in refusing it;
4. That his conduct is not reprehensible.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT –DUTY ON A COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES PRESENTED TO IT FOR DETERMINATION
“The court’s duty does not extend to making a pronouncement on every authority or legal argument made by counsel on an issue. The law is that a court in its judgment should pronounce on all issues, presented before it for determination. A court is not bound to pronounce on every case which parties cite before it.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
PURPOSE OF AN APPEAL – THE REAL PURPOSE OF AN APPEAL IS TO RESOLVE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGMENT.
“The real import of the above provision was explained by the Supreme Court per Uwaifo J.S.C. in the case of Osasona v. Ajayi & Ors (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 527. Therein it was stated that the purpose of an appeal is to resolve a complaint against a judgment. If the grounds of appeal are couched in such a way that it is difficult to identify, appreciate and correct the error sought to be dealt with, then the ground of appeal is vague, imprecise and discloses no reasonable ground of appeal.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
COURT – THE COURT IS ONLY EXPECTED TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS IN RESPECT OF ISSUES RAISED AND NOT ON LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
“The duty of the court is limited to pronouncing on every issue raised by the parties. There is no duty on the court to make a pronouncement on every authority or legal argument made by counsel in respect of the issues raised before the court. See Wilson & Anor. v. Oshin & Ors. (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) 90 at 110.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – THE COURT CAN ACT ON UNCONTROVERTED AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE.
“It is the law that a court is at liberty to act on uncontroverted affidavit evidence: Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444 at 483 paras. A-H.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IN A CASE
“In determining the balance of convenience, the Court considers the inconvenience which the Applicant would suffer if the injunction is not granted and that which the Respondent would suffer if the injunction is granted.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE DECISION OF A LOWER COURT – AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD ONLY INTEREFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WHERE ITS DISCRETION WAS EXERCISED ARBITRARILY
“This Court will not interfere with the lower court’s decision simply because it would have exercised its own discretion differently. To warrant any form of interference, the appellant must satisfy this court that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or illegally or without due regard to all necessary considerations having regard to the circumstances of this case as contained in the Record of Appeal. See United Spinners Ltd v Chartered Bank Ltd [2001] 14 NWLR (Part 732) 195; Ceekay Traders Ltd v Gen. Motors Co. Ltd [1992] 2 NWLR (part 222) 132; Salu v Egeibon [1994] 6 NWLR (Part 349) 23 and Alsthom v Saraki [2005] 3 MJSC 125.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
NOTICE OF APPEAL – PROCEDURE WHERE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE NOTICES OF APPEALS.
“The usual practice where there are two separate Notices of Appeal is for the two appeals to have separate appeal numbers and then if counsel so desires, he would apply to the court by motion on notice for consolidation of the two suits and to be allowed to use the same Record of Appeal for the second appeal.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
INJUNCTION –AN APPELLATE COURT HAS POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION UPON THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT SAME
“This court has the power statutorily to grant an injunction where the lower court refuses to grant the injunction. See Section 15 Court of Appeal Act, 2004. Sotuminu v Ocean Steamship (Nig) Ltd (1992) NWLR (Pt. 239)1. But where the appellant appeals against the refusal of injunction by a lower court, the duty of the appellate court is to consider whether the lower court exercised its discretion properly given the circumstances of the case.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Court of Appeal Act, 2004
Court of Appeal Rules, 2011
Federal High Court Act
