HRM OBA (DR) ADEDAPO ADEWALE TEJUOSO V ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA & ORS

CORAM

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE -JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE -JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE -JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

HRM OBA (DR) ADEDAPO ADEWALE TEJUOSO APPELLANTS

1. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA

2. ACCESS BANK (Formerly Intercontinental Bank Plc)

3.  INTERCONTINENTAL SECURITIES LTD

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant had obtained a loan from the Intercontinental Bank before the acquisition of the bank by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, and subsequently, all the debts of the said Intercontinental Bank were acquired by the 1st Defendant/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted this action in the Federal High Court, praying the Court for the following reliefs amongst others; an account of all the purchases and sales of stocks and shares effected by or on the instructions of the 2nd and 3rdDefendants/Respondent, an account of all monies of the plaintiff in the hands of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents for failure to carry out the specific instructions of the Plaintiff/Appellant to sell the shares purchased with the loan money if the value drops below 130% of the facility amount, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agents servants or privies from freezing the bank accounts of the Plaintiff/Appellant and/ or taking over the possession of the movable or immovable assets of the Plaintiff/Appellant without first obtaining judgment against the him for a specific sum of money. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit against it on the ground that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent was not a proper party. The trial court after hearing the preliminary objection, affirmed its jurisdiction but struck out the name of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the striking out of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s name, the Plaintiff/ Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Succeeds.

ISSUES

Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, the 2nd Respondent is a necessary and desirable party.Whether the court below was right by determining the substantive issues in this suit at the interlocutory stage.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADMISSION – THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO ACT ON AN ADMISSION AGAINST SELF INTEREST WHERE SUCH ADMISSION IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL

‘‘The law is that once an admission against self interest is unequivocal and clear, the court is entitled to act on such facts.’’PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PROPER PARTY, DESIRABLE PARTY AND A NECESSARY PARTY

‘‘Considerations necessary in determining a necessary party were clearly spelt out in the case of Green V Green (1987) NWLR (Pt 61) 481 where the apex court had this to say:
“This now leads to the consideration of the difference between ‘proper parties’, ‘desirable parties’ and ‘necessary parties’. Proper parties are those who, though not interested in the Plaintiff’s claim, are made parties for some good reasons e.g. where an action is brought to rescind a contract, any person is a proper party to it who was active or concurring in the matters which gave the Plaintiff the right to rescind. Desirable, those who have an interest or who may be affected by the result. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with in other words the question to be settled in the action between the existing parties to the action instituted by the Plaintiff.”PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – CONSTITUENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘Put in another way, the apex court said what constitutes cause of action is this:
“In its simplest terms, I would say that a cause of action means
(1) A cause of complaint;
(2) A civil right or obligation fit for determination by a court of law;
(3) A dispute in respect of which a court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine.
It consist of every fact which it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.”See Afolayan V Ogunrinade(1990) (Pt 127) 369.’’ PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

NECESSARY PARTY – DEFINITION OF A NECESSARY PARTY

‘‘A necessary party has been defined in the case of Panalpina World Transport Ltd V J.B. Olandeen International & Ors (2010) LPELR — SC — 30/2003as follows:
“A necessary party to a proceeding is a party whose presence and participation is necessary or essential for the effective and complete determination of the claim before the court.’’PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSIONS –ADMISSIONS CAN EITHER BE FORMAL OR INFORMAL.

‘‘Admission can be classified into two categories, formal and informal admission and these are:
“Formal admissions are admission made by a party in a civil proceedings so as to relieve the other party of the necessity of proving the matters admitted. They are usually contained in a pleading as facts admitted in a pleading need not be proved any longer but are taken as established. Formal admissions may also take the form of clear admissions filed or made by a party to a civil proceeding or by his counsel in the course of the trial of a civil suit. The court, however even in the case of a formal admission in a civil proceeding has discretion to require the admitted fact to be proved by some other evidence other than by the admission itself.
Informal admissions, on the other hand, do not necessarily or strictly speaking bind their maker and may therefore be explained or contradicted. The weight of an informal admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made and these circumstances may always be proved to impeach or enhance its credibility. Thus an informal admission, unless it amounts to an estoppel, may be established by the party against whom it is tendered to be incorrect, untrue or to have been made under a mistake of law or fact or some compelling or vitiating circumstances. Accordingly, the value of an informal admission depends on the particular circumstances under which it was made and it is for the trial court to determine the issue and to give dueweight to the alleged admission and the examplanatory circumstances thereof.”See Nwankwo V Nwankwo(1995) LPELR -2110 (SC).’’PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFINITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘Cause of action has received judicial recognition by our courts and the simple definition or description of it can be found in the case of Oshoboja V Amuda(1992) NWLR (Pt 250) 690 where the Supreme Court gave a simple definition in the following terms:
“The words ‘cause of action’ have been defined by this court in a number of cases to simply mean the facts which when proved will entitle a plaintiff to a remedy against a defendant.” Per Uwais J.S.C.’’ PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

ADMISSIONS – ADMISSIONS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE MAKER, EVERY ADMISSION MUST BE EVALUATED IN LIGHT OF THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES.

‘‘It is also not the law that admissions are conclusive against the maker as every admission must be carefully evaluated and considered against the backdrop of the circumstances under which it was made.’’ PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – DETERMINATION OF CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘Cause of action is determined from the statement of claim. The statement of defence has nothing to do with it. It is from a closer examination of the claim that a cause of action can be determined see UBN V Umeoduagu(2004) 13 NWLR (Pt 890) 352 where the court held thus:
“In determining whether or not pleadings disclosed any reasonable cause of action, the trial court will only examine the writ of summons and the statements of claim. It will not examine the statement of defence by way of affidavit.”See also Yusuf &Ors V Akindipe(2000) 8 NWLR (Pt 669) 376; Dantata V Mohammed (2000) 5 S.C 1.’’ PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS – AN ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS PUTS AN END TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PROOF

‘‘An admission in pleadings is one that generally puts an end to the requirement of proof and the parties need not join issues on the point or fact admitted. As Niki Tobi J.S.C. put it, proof presupposes a dispute and since admission removes the element of dispute, proof becomes superfluous, see Akaniwo V Nsirim(2008) 9 NWLR (Pt 1093) 439.’’PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

AMCON Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT