CONTRACT RESOURCES NIGERIA LIMITED VS STANDARD TRUST BANK LIMITED

CORAM

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CONTRACT RESOURCES NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS

STANDARD TRUST BANK LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant/ defendant got judgment in their favor for the payment of a debt by the plaintiff/ respondent at the trial court. The plaintiff/ respondent aggrieved applied to the high court for a stay of execution which was granted. Consequently since the grounds of stay of execution were unfavorable they further applied to the Court of Appeal where the terms of the stay of execution were varied. The appellant/ defendant aggrieved by this applied to the Supreme Court questioning the power of the court appeal to make such declaration.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether in all the affidavit evidence before the Court of Appeal there was evidence stating the legal personality and the proof of existence of the Respondent BANK, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of A.C.B. Plc Vs. Emostrade Ltd (2002) 8 NWLR (Part 770 ) 501?

2. Whether in (sic) the exercise of the powers of the Court of Appeal under section 18 of the Court of Appeal under section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, extends to ordering stay of execution of monetary judgment despite the fact that the Notice of Appeal was signed in the name of a firm of Legal Practitioners, and not in the name of a legal practitioner, thereby rendering the Notice of Appeal  invalid and incompetent?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it ordered a stay of execution of the judgment of a High Court entered to wit: “the sum of N45, 178 ,570.03 being the value of the bank draft, with 20% interest on the sum with effect from 20/ 8/ 99 till payment is fully liquidated” on the only condition to wit: ” that a Bank guarantee in the sum of N46, 495, 605. 00 shall be lodged with the Deputy Chief Registrar, to facilitate due payment to the respondent if, per chance, the appeal fails.” And if a Bank guarantee without incorporating the 20% interest yielding account, whereas the stay of bank guarantee of an abstract sum of 46, 495 ,605.00 favored only the applicant respondent?

4. Whether the exercise of the discretion by the Court of Appeal based on wrongly admitted inadmissible evidence viz-a viz the uncertified certificate of increase shares, and the uncertified Bank’s current audited statement of accounts, public documents inadmissible as secondary evidence, did not render the discretion exercised by the court perverse?.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – COMPETENCE OF AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

“it is pertinent to restate the position of the law emphatically that both the ground of appeal as well as the issue formulated therefrom must arise from the decision appealed against. Where it is however otherwise or converse is the case, the court is enjoined to discountenance both the ground of appeal and the issue formulated therefrom as inconsequential and liable to be struck out”.

PROOF OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY

The question of proof of juristic personality is a matter of fact not evidence. PER Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, JSC

CASES CITED

Kokoro- Owo v  Lagos State Government (2201) 5 SC  Part 11Achiakpa V Nduka (2001) 7 SC Part 111 page 125A.G Bendel State V Aideyan (1989) 4  NWLR part (118) page 646; Buraimoh v Bamgbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) page, 352 Biocon Agrochemicals Nigeria Limited V. Kudu Holding (pty) Limited (200) 12 SC part 1 page 139R.E.A.N. Vs Aswani  Textile Industries Limited (1992) 3 NWLR Pt 227 page 1

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Court of Appeal Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT