site logo

ENYIBROS FOOD PROCESSING CO. (NIG.) LTD V. MBAMALU (2021)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Kudirat M. Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC (Presided)
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC
  • Ejemebi Eko JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa JSC
  • Adamu Jauro JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Enyibros Food Processing Co. (Nig.) Ltd

Respondents:

  • Charles Ndubuisi Mbamalu
  • Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation
Suit number: SC. 231/2009Delivered on: 2021-05-07

Background

This case originated from a ruling made by the Court of Appeal, Enugu, on 2 March 2009, which appointed S.O. Chinwuba and Company as a receiver for property located at No. 9, Nwosu Street, Achara Layout, Enugu. The respondent argued that the appointment was necessary for collecting rents and maintaining the property. The appellant, Enyibros Food Processing Co. (Nig.) Ltd, challenged the appointment, arguing that true ownership must be determined before such an appointment could be valid.

Issues

The key issues in this appeal were:

  1. Whether the appellant's appeal, not accompanied by the necessary leave, was competent.
  2. The effect of filing an appeal outside the prescribed time limit.
  3. The right of all affected parties to a fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that...

  1. The appeal was incompetent and could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court due to the absence of leave to appeal on grounds that involved mixed law and fact.
  2. Filing out of the statutory time limit for an interlocutory appeal rendered the notice invalid.
  3. Leave of the court must be sought and obtained for grounds of appeal that raise issues of fact or mixed law and fact to be valid.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. The appeal was filed one day after the 14-day statutory period, making it fundamentally defective.
  2. All grounds of appeal were either factual or mixed law and fact, hence required prior leave which was not obtained.
  3. The core issue regarding Chinwuba & Co.'s standing as a receiver was not appropriately addressed as it was not a party to the appeal.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck out the appeal, deeming it incompetent. The court emphasized that legal processes must adhere to statutory requirements to maintain their validity.

Significance

This ruling highlights critical aspects of appellate procedure in Nigeria, particularly the necessity of adhering to filing deadlines and obtaining necessary leaves for appeals involving mixed law and fact. It underscores the importance of each party's right to fair representation in legal proceedings.

Counsel:

  • Prisca Ozoilesike Amah, Esq. - for the Appellant
  • Dan O. Urakpa, Esq. - for the 1st Respondent