ABIOLA & SONS BOTTLING COMPANY LTD VS SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY LTD & ORS

CORAM

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

KAYODE ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

SULEIMAN GALADMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

PARTIES

ABIOLA & SONS BOTTLING COMPANY LTD

SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY LTD & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs took a writ of summons against the defendants at the trial court that the appointment by the 1st Defendant of the 2nd Defendant as a Receiver /Manager to over the physical control and sell off all assets of the plaintiff was hasty, illegal, null and void. The learned trial judge dismissed the defendants’ counter claim in its entirety, dissatisfied, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the lower court allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs/respondents and now appellants appealed to this court.

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

1.Whether in the circumstance if this case, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they over-ruled the Respondents/Appellants’ preliminary objection in its entirety?

2.Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the trial High court had/has no requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs [now appellants] suit/claims vide Decree No. 60 of 1991?

3.Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, PW1 can be classified and/or referred to as “A PERSON INTERESTED” when he prepared EXHIBITS 34 and 36 respectively as held by the Court of Appeal.?

4.Whether the Court of Appeal was right and proper in its decision when it held that:”The failure, if any by the 2nd defendant/appellant to register his instrument of appointment or to make the requisite returns did not relate back to adversely affect his otherwise valid appointment?

5.Whether the Court of Appeal rightly and properly considered the relevancy and/or applicability of the provisions of Auctioneers Law and Land Use Act in the circumstance of this case. [Grounds 12, 13, 14 and 15]?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION-ON WHETHER A COURT CAN REVERSE ITS DECISION IN CASE BOTHERING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION

The position of the law as adumbrated somewhere, is that where the Court of Appeal has ruled that the lower court lacks jurisdiction over a matter, this decision would not estop the same court from reversing itself in the same case between the same parties [as in this case] on the issue of jurisdiction should fresh arguments or some other relevant statutes on the matter be brought to its attention as in the case of AKINBOBOLA VS. PLISSON FISKO NIGERIA
LIMITED [1991] 1 NWLR [part 167] 270. – PER I.T MUHAMMAD, JSC

JURISDICTION-CONSEQUENCE OF A RULING OR JUDGMENT GIVEN IN ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION

It is trite that where a court lacks jurisdiction all the proceedings it conducts including a ruling or judgment delivered, are a nullity.- PER I.T MUHAMMAD, JSC

HIERARCHY OF COURTS-PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

“By the principle of hierarchy of Courts, all Courts below the Court of Appeal are bound by its decision until otherwise set aside by the Supreme Court. The matter does not end there. The issue of jurisdiction on this matter whether before me or in the Court of Appeal has already been destructive litigated upon [sic] and has been destructive by determined [sic]. In the circumstance of this case, it will be improper [sic] to seek to relitigate on the same issue either before this court or the Court of Appeal.” PER I.T MUHAMMAD, JSC

CASES CITED

AKINBOBOLA VS. PLISSON FISKO NIGERIA LIMITED [1991] 1 NWLR [part 167] 270SAVANAH BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED VS. PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING &TRANSPORT AGENCIES LIMITED & ANOR. M9871 1 NSCC 67 at page 72?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT