SEPLAT PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT VS BRITTANIA U NIGERIA LIMITED & 4 ORS
Source : LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[2014]CA/L/100/2014
AREAS OF LAW:
OIL AND GAS LAW; INJUNCTION; JURISDICTION; APPEAL; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACT:
The Plaintiff/1st Respondent commenced a suit at the Federal High Court Lagos State, against the Appellant and the 2nd-5th Respondents. The trial Court granted the Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s motion ex parte seeking to restrain the 2nd-5th Respondents and the 5th Defendant/Appellant from proceeding or continuing to invite bids, offering or accepting, negotiating or engaging in any transaction or contract calculated or purporting to transfer, sell, farm out or otherwise charge, encumber, deal in, dispose of or divest the 40% participating interest of Chevron Nigeria Limited in Oil Mining in disregard of the agreement entered into between the Plaintiff/1st Respondent and the 1st Defendant/2nd. The 4th Defendant/5th Respondent applied that the interim order of injunction be vacated by the trial Court but the trial Court extended same on the ground that the condition precedent that will warrant its expiration had not been fulfilled. Dissatisfied with the interlocutory decision of the trial Court, the 5th Defendant/Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD:
Appeal Allowed
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
Whether the learned trial judge in the face of two applications challenging the jurisdiction of the court, to entertain the suit as constituted was right in taking arguments on a separate oral application to extend the interim injunction and delivering a ruling in respect of same without first determining its jurisdiction
Whether in the circumstances of the case on at 27th January, 2014, the learned trial judge could validly extend the life span of the order of interim injunction granted ex-parte on the 13th of December, 2013 and amended on the 18th of December,2013 notwithstanding the provision of order 26 Rule 12 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009
Whether Appellant has compiled and transmitted competent and valid record of Appeal
RATIOS:
RECORD OF APPEAL – WHEN SHOULD AN APPELLANT COMPILE THE RECORD OF APPEAL
“The rules requires the Appellant to compile records only after the expiration of 60 days and where the registrar of the court below has failed to compile the record of appeal. The burden is primarily that of the Registrar of the court below and the duty on the appellant arises at the expiration of 60 days and only if the Registrar has failed to compile the record”. PER NIMPAR JCA
PRESUMPTION- PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF RECORD OF PROCEEDING – PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
“Record of proceedings of a court is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. Any party challenging record must swear to an affidavit setting out the facts or part of the proceedings omitted or wrongly stated in the records. Such affidavit is usually served on the Judge and or the Registrar of the court who would then if he desires to contest the affidavit swear to and file a counter affidavit.” PER NIMPAR JCA
RECORD OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF AN INCOMPLETE RECORD OF APPEAL
“An Appellate court cannot hear an appeal with incomplete records, the reason being that an incomplete record affects the competence of the court”. PER NIMPAR JCA
RECORD OF APPEAL – BINDINGNESS OF THE RECORD OF APPEAL ON PARTIES
“The record of appeal is also binding on all parties until the contrary is proved”. PER NIMPAR JCA
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION
“The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental to any adjudication”. PER NIMPAR JCA
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION - WHEN CAN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED
“It is a threshold issues that can be raised at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal and for the first time. Unless there is jurisdiction the entire proceeding is a nullity no matter how well conducted.” PER NIMPAR JCA
POWER OF COURT – WHETHER A COURT HAS INHERENT POWER TO PROTECT ITS AUTHORITY OR DIGNITY OUTSIDE STATUTORY POWERS
“A court cannot have any inherent power to protect its authority or dignity outside statutory powers. It is jurisdiction that enables the court to have authority and dignity. A court is naked and exposed without jurisdiction. It is therefore the general rule to determine jurisdiction first whilst it is an exceptional rule to take steps in defending or protecting the authority of the court first before jurisdiction”. PER NIMPAR JCA
JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION FIRST BEFORE RULING ON OTHER APPLICATION – IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
“The court in the face of a challenge to its jurisdiction can take other applications along the objection to jurisdiction but must first determine jurisdiction before ruling on the other aspects of the applications taken if and only if it has jurisdiction, see Senate President V. Nzeribe Supra. Jurisdiction is not what any court can toy with, it is the root and foundation of competence to determine matters and it would be wrong of any court to defer the determination of a challenge to jurisdiction whilst considering any other application on the excuse that the applications challenging the jurisdiction of the court were not ripe... The only jurisdiction such a court has is to determine its jurisdiction and no more.” PER NIMPAR JCA
INJUNCTION – DURATION OF AN INTERIM OR EX-PARTE ORDER OF INJUNCTION
“No interim or ex-parte order of injunction is made as of right to last beyond a period of time. It is a temporary relief given ex-parte and therefore none should be made to last beyond a short period as doing so would offend the right of parties to be heard before any order is made against their interest.” PER NIMPAR JCA
RESPONDENT’S NOTICE – WHAT AN APPELLANT SEEKING TO OPPOSE A RESPONDENT’S NOTICE MUST FILE
“It is settled practice that an appellant seeking to oppose a respondent's notice to contend must file a preliminary objection and this is in compliance with Order 10 Rules 1 of the court rules of this court. An appellant is not allowed to raise an objection to competence of a respondents notice to contend in his brief. This is because the notice to contend is like a cross appeal with its grounds and not based on the grounds of the notice of appeal of the appellant.” PER NIMPAR JCA
CASES MENTIONED:
Dairo V Uba (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 392) 1846 at 1872 - 1873;
Ibe Vs Onuorah (1999) 14 NWLR (PT 638 ) 340 at 350
NDIC VS CBN ((2002) 7 NWLR (PT 766) 272 at 296 - 297.
Obiuweubi V CBN (2011) LPELR-2185 (SC).
UBA Plc V Ademola (2008) LPELR 5066 (CA);
Utih & Ors V Onoyivwe & Ors (1991) LPELR 3436 (SC)
STATUTES REFERRED TO:
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013.
Court of Appeal Rules 2011
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009