CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD
NWALI SYLVESTER NGUWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
REPTICO S.A. GENEVA APPELLANTS
AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, after supplying a consignment of rice ordered from Germany by Kano co-operatives, drew a bill of exchange of US $900,000 which Kano co-operatives directed the Respondent, its banker to pay the bill. The Respondent after getting approval from the Central bank of Nigeria for exchange control purposes, neglected, refused and/or failed to deposit the proceeds in a Swiss Volksbank in Geneva, Switzerland being the Appellant’s bank/Agent. Irked by the Respondent’s action, the Appellant instituted an action against the Respondent in estoppel by negligence. The trial Court found in favour of the Appellant. The respondent appealed to Court of Appeal where the appeal was upheld for lack of proof of the incorporation status by the Appellant and on further appeal to the Supreme Court by the Appellant, the decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether it was proper for the Court of Appeal to make a case, which the appellant did not make or purport to make as the plaintiff in the trial court?
2. Whether the claim as formulated is statute barred?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that a (Swiss) foreign company must be proved as provided for by the Nigerian Companies Law and the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Randle Vs. Kwara Breweries Limited when both companies and Allied Matters Act and the decision of the Supreme Court cited do not deal or purport to deal with a foreign company ?
4. Whether the Court of appeal was right in holding that what has been admitted should still be proved?
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right by ignoring the law of nations which is part of Nigeria law as set out in Hutcheon Vs. Mannington that a statement of a Notary Public is given credit everywhere, when the said court ignore(sic) a certification by a Notary Public in Geneva contained in exhibit Pll that the appellant is a Swiss incorporated company.?
6. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in concluding that, the appellant’s case was an attempt to avoid being confronted with the argument that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that prompted the lower court to create a contract between the Swiss Volksbank and the defendant.”?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF COURT- NOT TO FORMULATE A DIFFERENT CASE FOR PLAINTIFF
“The court cannot formulate a different case for the plaintiff”. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
LEGAL PERSONALITY- CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE TO SUE AND BE SUED
In other words, no action can be brought by or against any party-other than a natural person or body of persons, unless such a party has been given by statute, expressly or impliedly either (a) a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued or (b) a right to sue or be sued by that name. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- POWER OF THE COURT TO FORMULATE OR REFORMULATE ISSUES-WHEN CAN BE EXERCISED
“However, there is no doubt that an appellate court has the power to reformulate the issues for determination of a matter, as long as the reformulated issues are within the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant but not outside. This is usually done by the court mostly for the purpose of clarity and precision when it is noticed by the court that the issues as distilled are clumsy, not precise and sometimes are proliferated”. – Per ARIWOOLA JSC
LEGAL PERSONALITY-CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE TO SUE AND BE SUED
“Generally, the law recognizes two categories of persons who can sue and be sued in court. They are natural persons, with life, mind, brain and physical body and other artificial persons or Institutions having juristic personality”. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
FACTS PLEADED-EFFECT OF NOT LEADING EVIDENCE ON FACTS PLEADED
“Again, the principle is that pleaded facts in respect of which evidence is not led by a party is deemed abandoned”. Per MUHAMMAD, JSC
JURISTIC PERSONALITY-EFFECT OF A TRIAL WITHOUT JURISTIC PERSONALITY
There is no doubt that the issue of juristic personality of the parties before the court goes to the competence of the action itself and that of the trial court where the action originated. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
FACTS ADMITTED-WHETHER NEEDS FURTHER PROOF
“It is trite law that whatever fact is admitted needs no further proof. It is deemed established”. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
BURDEN OF PROOF-ON WHOM LIES
“It is trite law that he who asserts must prove the assertion”. Per MUHAMMAD, JSC
BURDEN OF PROOF-ON WHOM LIES -EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DISCHARGE IT
“There is no doubt and it is a fundamental procedural requirement that when issues are pined by parties in the pleadings, evidence is required to prove them as averred. It is the person upon whom the burden of establishing that issue lies that must adduce satisfactory evidence. It therefore necessarily follows that when there is no such evidence, the issue, must be resolved against him and the consequences of that are as decisive of the case presented as the materiality of that issue. Generally, the nature of the evidence that will suffice, as to whether in oral or documentary, may well depend on the issue in question and the requirement of the law”. Per ARIWOOLA JSC
PLEADINGS-BINDINGNESS OF PARTIES BY THEIR PLEADINGS
The principle must out rightly be restated that parties to an action are always bound by their pleadings. Per MUHAMMAD, JSC
CASES CITED
Admin Estate of Gen. Sanni Abacha Vs. Eke-Spiff & Ors (2009) 3 SCM 1; (2009) NWLR (Pt. 1139) 92 Agbakoba Vs. INEC (2008) 12 SCM (pt 2) 159; (2008) All FWLR (Pt.410) 799; (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 489. African Continental Bank Plc & Anor Vs. Emostrade Limited (2002) 7 SCM 7 (2002) 8 NWLR 503 Agala & Ors Vs Eqwere & Ors (2010) 5 SCM 22 at 37. Alphonsus Imkuma Vs. Joseph Otunuya Odili (2006) 4SCM 127 at 135 Arjay Ltd v. Ams Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt 820) 577 SC Attorney General of Federation Vs. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors (2003) 12 SCM 1 at 12; (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.851) 182; (2003) 12 SC (Pt.ll) 146. Baloqun Vs Labiran (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.80) 66 Ekpenvong Vs. Nyonq (1975) 2 SC 71 at 80 Elias Vs. Disu (1962) 1 AN NLR 214, Elias Vs Omo-Barre (1982) 5 SC 2, Emeka Nwana Vs. FCDA & Qrs. (2004) 7 SCM 25, Ilodibia Vs. Nigerian Cement Company Limited (1997) 7 NWLR (pt 512) 54 – 55; Knight and Searle Vs Dove (1964) 2 All ER 307 Macfov Vs. U.A.C (1962) AC 152; or (1961) 3 All F_R 1169 Mozie & Ors Vs Mbamalu, & Ors j(2006) 12 SCM (Pt.l) 306 at 317, Okoebor v. Police council [2003) 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444 SC Olubode Vs. Oyesuxi (1977) 5 SC 79 Wuchem Vs Gudi |(1981) 5 SC 291,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 135 of Evidence Act Section 75 of Evidence Act