BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Reg. Trustees, Omadino Devt. Association v. (Tegas) Dansmark Neshec Ltd
  • 811
  • 2015-12-14
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Reg. Trustees, Omadino Devt. Association v. (Tegas) Dansmark Neshec Ltd

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF OMADINO DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

V

  1. ( TEGAS) DANSMARK NESHEC LIMITED
  2. MR. MARK AGBEYEGBE
  3. V. O. GRANT & CO.
  4. 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 )

CA/B/109/2004

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

Issues:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Whether the court below’s judgment was not against the weight of the evidence adduced in the case.

Facts:

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.