site logo

PARTNERSHIP SECURITIES LTD V. EKPE (2023)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Biobele A. Georgewill JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Frederick Oziakpono Oho JCA
  • Folashade Ayodeji Ojo JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Partnership Securities Ltd
  • Partnership Investment Company Plc
  • SBDC Microfinance Bank Ltd

Respondent:

  • Arnold Onyekwere Ekpe
Suit number: CA/L/695A/2017

Background

The case of Partnership Securities Ltd v. Ekpe deals with an appeal concerning the ex-parte order made by the Federal High Court, which appointed a provisional liquidator to take control of the assets of the appellants.

The respondent, Arnold Onyekwere Ekpe, alleged that he had instructed the first appellant to sell shares at a specified price but received less and was denied the proceeds. He subsequently filed a winding-up petition in the Federal High Court and sought the appointment of a provisional liquidator via an ex-parte motion.

Issues

Key issues identified in this case include:

  1. Whether the ex-parte order granting the provisional liquidator was a violation of the appellants' right to fair hearing per section 36(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.
  2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to issue ex-parte orders in the winding-up proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

In resolving these issues, the court outlined several points:

  1. The court has the authority to issue ex-parte orders if delaying such orders may result in irreparable damage.
  2. Ex-parte orders by their nature are temporary and do not usually determine the rights of the parties, thus not always violating the right to fair hearing.
  3. In cases of winding-up proceedings, adherence to existing rules is crucial to ensure fair and proper administration.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that:

  1. The lower court was authorized to issue interim orders for asset preservation but must adhere to relevant legal provisions, including putting the other party on notice for orders that affect them directly.
  2. The requirement for notice before making an order against a party is in line with the Winding-Up Rules, which demand that parties be put on notice before hearing.
  3. The court noted that while the appointment of a provisional liquidator is permissible, the manner in which it is sought matters significantly.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the appeal was partially upheld, affirming the appointment of a provisional liquidator but setting aside the specific order granting the liquidator access to the appellants' assets, arguing that the ex-parte nature of that order breached the appellants' rights.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings, particularly in sensitive matters such as winding-up petitions. The necessity for notice prior to significant judicial orders reaffirms the constitutional right of parties to be heard in legal matters that affect their interests.