WITT & BUSCH LIMITED V DALE POWER SYSTEMS PLC - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

WITT & BUSCH LIMITED V DALE POWER SYSTEMS PLC

ALHAJI MUJAHID DOKUBO-ASARI V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
June 2, 2025
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC & ANOR V ALHAJI BABANGIDA JARGABA
June 3, 2025
ALHAJI MUJAHID DOKUBO-ASARI V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
June 2, 2025
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC & ANOR V ALHAJI BABANGIDA JARGABA
June 3, 2025
Show all

WITT & BUSCH LIMITED V DALE POWER SYSTEMS PLC

Legalpedia Citation: (2007) Legalpedia (SC) 77951

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri May 25, 2007

Suit Number: SC. 240/2000

CORAM


SLYVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SLYVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SLYVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SLYVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


WITT & BUSCH LIMITED APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The application for the registration of the foreign judgment brought by the respondent was granted with an order to the appellant to apply within 14days to set aside the registration. The appellant failed to apply within the said time but their application which was heard by another judge was granted. The Court of Appeal reversed the grant.


HELD


Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the registration of the foreign judgment from England is governed by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Ordinances CAP 175 LFN 1958.


ISSUES


1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that registration of the Respondent’s judgment from the High Court of England was governed by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Ordinances CAP 175 LFN 1958 as against the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act CAP 152 LFN 1990.2. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is not liable to be set aside for reason that the English Court Judgment was registered in foreign currency and not Nigerian Naira contrary to the provisions of Section 4(3) of the 1990 Act.3. Whether the Court of Appeal is correct in holding that by participating in the proceedings before the English High Court the Appellant lost its right to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the English Court


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


1. Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v. Montery Maritime Corporation(1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) 12. Amanabu v. Okafor(1966) 1 ANLR 205


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Ordinances CAP 175 LFN 1958

2. Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act CAP 152 LFN 1990.

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.