- Reg. Trustees, Omadino Devt. Association v. (Tegas) Dansmark Neshec Ltd
- ₦ 200
Reg. Trustees, Omadino Devt. Association v. (Tegas) Dansmark Neshec Ltd
THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF OMADINO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
- ( TEGAS) DANSMARK NESHEC LIMITED
- MR. MARK AGBEYEGBE
- V. O. GRANT & CO.
- MR. V. O. GRANT
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA JCA ( Presided )
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA JCA
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
MONDAY, 11 MAY 2015
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Judicial and official acts - Regularity of Rebuttable presumption of - Evidence Act, 2011, section 168 considered
APPEAL - Evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to Primary duty of trial court therefor - Attitude of appellate court to - Correctness of findings of - Party who challenges presumption of - Onus on
APPEAL - Record of appeal - Presumption of correctness of - Bindingness of parties by
COMPANY LAW - Incorporation - Effect of - Companies and Allied Matters Act, section 37 considered
COURT - Findings made by court - Nature of - Effect of a misconception as to
EVIDENCE - Plaintiff - Claim of - Onus on to establish - Evidence Act, 2011 , sections 131-134 considered
EVIDENCE - Presumptions - Judicial and official acts - Regularity of Rebuttable presumption of - Evidence Act, 2011, section 168 considered
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Words in legal documentation Depiction of in parenthesis - What implies
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Findings made by court - Nature of - Effect of a misconception as to
MAXIM - Ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio - Meaning of
MAXIM - Omia praesumintur rite solemniter esse acta donee probetur in contrarim - Meaning of
MAXIM - Sublato principali tollitur adjunctum - Meaning of
POWER OF ATTORNEY - When irrevocable
STATUTE - Companies and Allied Matters Act, section 37 - Incorporation - Effect of
STATUTE - Evidence Act, 2011, section 168 - Judicial and official acts - Regularity of - Rebuttable presumption of
STATUTE - Evidence Act, 2011, sections 131-134 - Plaintiff - Claim of - Onus on to establish
- Whether the court below was correct in holding at page 230, lines 7-8 of the records that in fact, from the evidence before the court, the defendant (now respondent) is a registered company.
- Whether the court below was correct in holding at page 230, lines 12-13 of the records that exhibit A is valid, that it was given by the entire community, and refused to set it aside.
- Whether the court below was correct in holding at page 230 lines 3-4 of the records, that the appellants do not have the legal capacity to institute the action.
- Whether the court below was correct in holding at page 230 lines 4-6 of the records, that the reliefs sought by the appellants are not such that the court (below) can grant.
- Whether the court below was fair to the appellants in totally shutting out completely from its judgment, the appellant’s reply to the respondents’ joint statement of defence at pages 213 - 215 of the record.
- Whether the court below’s judgment was not against the weight of the evidence adduced in the case.
The plaintiff, now appellant, commenced an action in the Federal High Court, Edo State, seeking a declaration that the 2nd respondent trading or carrying on business under the name or title of the 1st respondent which has not been duly incorporated by the Corporate Affairs Commission as a private limited liability company or at all is illegal, a perpetual order of injunction restraining him from further trading or carrying on business under such. It further sought for an order directing the 2nd respondent who is the 1st respondent’s proprietor and alter ego to pay to the Federal Government, the fine stipulated for under Companies and Allied Matters Act, a declaration that the power of attorney is fake, an order setting same aside, perpetual order of injunction restraining the respondents from holding themselves out as attorney and/or representatives of Omadino community and account of payment made to the respondents by oil and service companies operating on the community lands in respect of projects which the respondents claimed to have executed on behalf of Omadino community. The trial court dismissed appellant’s claims and not being satisfied, it filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, contending that the trial court erred by holding that the 1st respondent was a registered company without evidence therefor.