ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION v. HACKIT MOVERS NIGERIA LTD & ANOR
(2019)LCN/13890(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2019
CA/L/674/2018
RATIO
THE EFFECT OF THE RESPONDENTS NOT FILING THEIR BRIEF
Neither of the two (2) Respondents to the appeal filed a Respondents brief or any other processes for the prosecution of the appeal and so the appeal, like Appeal No. CA/L/578/2013 by the 2nd Respondent herein, is uncontested in the absence of the Respondents briefs. PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION Appellant(s)
AND
1. HACKIT MOVERS NIGERIA LTD
2. UT FINANCIAL SERVICES NIGERIA LTD Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgement delivered by the Federal High Court, sitting at Lagos, on the 25th February, 2013 in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/371/2012 in which the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent in the motion dated 16th April 2012 were granted against the Appellant. It was brought vide the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 18th May 2018, deemed on 24th May, 2018, premised on three (3) grounds from which two (2) issues are submitted to the Court for decision in the Appellants brief, filed on 6th April, 2018. They are thus: –
I. Whether the findings of the learned trial judge if the Appellant, by its petition, brought about the arrest and detention of the 1st Respondent?s staff in bad faith, was supported by law and the evidence before the Court. This relates to grounds 1 and 2.
II. Whether the learned trial judge can make an order granting perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant from carrying out its statutory duties.
Neither of the two (2) Respondents to the appeal filed a Respondents brief or any other processes for the prosecution of the appeal and so the appeal, like Appeal No. CA/L/578/2013 by the 2nd Respondent herein, is uncontested in the absence of the Respondents briefs.
As may easily be observed, though couched slightly in different form, the substance of the two (2) issues above, is the same with the two (2) Issues raised and canvassed in the Appeal NO. CA/L/578/2013.
In fact, the submissions on the issues in this appeal are substantially the same with those made in the other earlier appeal by the 2nd Respondent such that most of them refer to the Appellant in that appeal as the Appellant in this appeal. All the arguments/submissions are to the effect that the Appellant here is empowered by combined provisions of the statute establishing it and the Police Act, to investigate the complaint by the 2nd Respondent and so the Lower Court erred to have granted the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent.
The Court is urged to allow the appeal and set aside the judgement by the Lower Court.
I have fully considered the issues in the Appeal CA/L/578/2013 by the 2nd Respondent and eventually allowed the appeal. I also, as a consequence, set aside the judgement of the Lower Court against which this appeal was also brought.
In the above circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by my repetition of the reasons for the decisions on the two (2) issues in Appeal No. CA/L/578/2013 and I have set aside the judgment by the Lower Court in that appeal; it would appear that this appeal is over taken by that decision.
That position as it may be, for reasons set out in the judgement in Appeal No. CA/L/578/2013, the issues in this appeal are resolved in favour of the Appellant and the appeal allowed accordingly.
The judgement of the Lower Court delivered on 25th February, 2013 is hereby set aside and the 1st Respondent?s application of 6th April, 2012 is dismissed for lacking in merit.
Parties to bear their respective costs of prosecuting the appeal.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, J.C.A., (Hon. P.J.).
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have read the lead Judgment of my learned brother, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JCA before now and I find that he has covered the field and dealt with the salient issues at stake. I therefore, agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein.
I believe the appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed, the decision of the lower Court is set aside. I abide by all other consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
B.O.A. SonoikiFor Appellant(s)
L.C. Okoli with him, P. Sodje for the 2nd Respondent.
1st Respondent not representedFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
B.O.A. SonoikiFor Appellant
AND
L.C. Okoli with him, P. Sodje for the 2nd Respondent.
1st Respondent not representedFor Respondent
