OREDOLA OKEYA TRADING CO. & ANOR v. BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL & ANOR

CORAM

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1.  OREDOLA OKEYA TRADING CO.2. ALHAJI YESUFU ALABI AMOLEGBE APPELLANTS

BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL & ANOR

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant/Applicant filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking to substitute the 2nd Appellant who was deceased. The Appellant/Applicant also sought to substitute the 1st Respondent-Bank of Credit & Commerce International (which subsequently became known as the African International Bank Limited) with Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation on the ground that the license of 1st Respondent has been revoked by the Central Bank of Nigeria and that by the provisions of Section 40 of the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 2006 and Section 425 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C.20 LFN, 2004, the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation shall be deemed to have been appointed the provisional liquidator of the 1st Respondent with power to defend any legal proceeding on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The substitution of the 2nd Appellant was not opposed but however the 1st Respondent filed a counter-affidavit to oppose the substitution of the 1st Respondent with Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the revocation of license of the 1st Respondent by the Central Bank on 16th January, 1998, did not necessarily remove the life, so to say, of the 1st Respondent thereby making it incapable of suing or being sued or barring   it from becoming an appellant or a respondent in the appeal process

HELD

The application for substitution was partially granted.

ISSUES

1. Now the central issue for determination in this application, going by the facts contained in the affidavit evidence is substitution: (a) for Alhaji Sikiru Amolegbe to substitute the 2nd appellant, Alhaji Yesufu Alabi Amolegbe and (b) for Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation to substitute Bank of Credit and Commerce International, 1st respondent on record?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADMITTED FACT-WHETHER AN AVERMENT IN AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CATEGORICALLY DENIED WILL BE DEEMED TO BE ADMITTED BY THE OPPONENT

“It is trite as well that any averment in an affidavit which has not been categorically denied or controverted is deemed to be admitted by the opponent”. PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

BURDEN OF PROOF- WHETHER THE LAW ALWAYS PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL MATTERS ON THE PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT /PETITIONER/APPLICANT, TO SATISFY THE COURT BY LEADING CONCRETE EVIDENCE WITH A VIEW TO ESTABLISHING HIS CLAIM

“It is pertinent for me, my lords, to reiterate the position of the law that in our adversarial system of litigation, the law, always places the burden of proof in civil matters on the plaintiff/claimant/petitioner/applicant, as the case may be, to satisfy the court by leading concrete, cogent and valid evidence with a view to establishing his claim. The Evidence Act is very clear on this and provides as follows: “135 (1) whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that these facts exist. 136 the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

WINDING UP-MODES OF WINDING UP A COMPANY

“In general, there are (3) three known modes of winding up a company viz: (a) by the court; (b) voluntarily; or (c) subject to the supervision of the court.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

A – G Ondo State v. A – G Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.743) 706Adegoke v. Adibi (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.242) 410;Amodu v. Amodu (1990) 5 NWLR (pt.150) 356;Famuroti v. Agbeke (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt.189)1

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C.20 LFN, 2004

Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 2006

Evidence Act, 2011 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT