site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

NWOSU V. ISMAILA (2019)

Court of Appeal, Lagos Division

Coram
  • Mohammed Lawal Garba (Presiding)
  • Yargata Byenchit Nimpar (Lead Judgment)
  • U. Anthony Ogakwu
Parties

Appellants:

  • Mr. Okey Nwosu
  • Mr. Dayo Famoroti
  • Tohir Folorunsho Ismaila
  • Oduntan Taofik Ayinde
  • Adefule Michael Oloruntele
  • Obarinde Isaac Obatosho
  • Osadinuz Chuks Nwosa (Suing for themselves and/or on behalf of other shareholders of Finbank PLC)

Respondents:

  • Central Bank of Nigeria
  • First City Monument Bank PLC (Substituted for the former Finbank PLC by Order of Court of the 2 February 2016)
Suit number
A/C/L/861/2010
Delivered on

Background

This case involves an appeal by shareholders of Finbank PLC against the ruling of the Federal High Court that dismissed their application for judicial review. The appellants sought to quash the findings of a special examination of Finbank by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC). The lower court struck out their application after raising a preliminary issue regarding the statute of limitations.

Issues

  1. Whether the lower court was right in setting aside its earlier decision regarding the competency of the suit and claims.
  2. Whether the application for certiorari was statute barred.
  3. If the second issue is in the negative, whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

  1. The principle of functus officio applies, barring the court from sitting in appeal over its own decision unless significant new issues arise.
  2. An ex parte order does not constitute a final decision, allowing for it to be revisited if substantive matters come into play.
  3. Jurisdiction must be preserved; failure to meet statutory conditions makes the court's authority void.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. The lower court acted within its rights to reassess its decisions due to the distinct nature of claims presented by the parties.
  2. The application was made outside the statutory time frame stipulated by the Public Officers Protection Act.
  3. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the case constituted a continuing injury justifying an extension of the filing deadline.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling that the application for certiorari was barred by time limits legally imposed, reinforcing the necessity to follow procedural rules rigorously.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural statutes governing judicial review applications and highlights the limitations courts face in revisiting their own decisions unless legally justified to do so.

Counsel

Counsel:

  • I.O. Amiakor (S.C.) for the Appellants
  • Gabriel Onojasan (with him Ibeauchi) for the 1st-5th Respondents
  • Aanu Ogunro for the 6th Respondent
  • Olabisi Makanjuola for the 7th and 8th Respondents