Background
This case revolves around an appeal from the decision of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal regarding the enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained by Dale Power Systems Plc against Witt & Busch Limited in an English court. The respondent sought to register this judgment in Nigeria under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, Cap. 175 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1958. The initial registration was granted by Phillips J of the Lagos State High Court on October 13, 1997, but was later set aside by Ade-Alabi J on October 30, 1998. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which subsequently allowed the appeal and restored the initial registration. Witt & Busch Limited then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
This case presented several critical issues for determination:
- Whether the registration of the respondent’s judgment from the High Court of England was governed by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance Cap. 175, 1958 rather than the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 152, 1990.
- Whether the English court judgment, registered in foreign currency, contravened section 4(3) of the 1990 Act requiring registration in Nigerian naira.
- Whether Witt & Busch Limited lost its right to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the English court by participating in the foreign proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court affirmed that the applicable law for registering foreign judgments, particularly those obtained from the United Kingdom, includes both the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, Cap. 175 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 152. The court emphasized that the 1958 Ordinance still applies as it was not repealed by the 1990 Act. As such, the English judgment was found registrable within the relevant statutory periods, making the initial arguments of the appellant unfounded.
Court Findings
The Court dismissed concerns around the judgment being registered in foreign currency, confirming that Nigerian courts have the authority to register judgments in foreign currency, especially while section 4(3) of the 1990 Act has not been operationalized. Furthermore, the court established that an appellant who participates in foreign court proceedings forfeits their right to contest the court's jurisdiction, as was the case with Witt & Busch Limited.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that under Nigerian law, foreign judgments can be enforced without being confined to local currency unless explicitly stated by a law in force. It also highlights the futility of contesting jurisdiction after participation in a foreign legal process.
Significance
The decision in this case is significant as it clarifies the applicability of different statutes regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments within Nigeria. Furthermore, it underscores the principle of jurisdictional submission, stressing that participation in judicial proceedings may impact a party's rights to challenge those proceedings later.