NIGERIAN GAS COMPANY LTD & ANOR V. SAIPEN CONTRACTING (NIG) LTD. & ANOR
(2013)LCN/5947(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 21st day of February, 2013
CA/PH/161/2002
RATIO
NOTICE OF APPEAL: FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL LEAD TO THE MATTER BEING INCOMPETENT AND STRUCK OUT BY THE COURT
Order 6 Rule of 7 of the 2011 Rules of this court provides thus:
“The Registrar of the court below SHALL endorse on the Notice of Appeal the fees paid thereon, receipt number and the date of payment.”
That this was not done or reflected on the Notice of Appeal is a clear testimony that fees were not paid as required by the Rules.
Even though counsel adopted their briefs in this appeal, the non payment of the appropriate fees for the filing of the Notice of Appeal in this case has rendered this appeal incompetent. There is therefore no reason to go into the merits of this appeal.PER CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) J.C.A.
COURT OF APPEAL: POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO STRIKE OUT A NOTICE OF APPEAL WHEN THE APPEAL IS NOT COMPETENT
Therefore, even though counsel in this case adopted their briefs, an appeal that is incompetent cannot be said to be heard.
Order 6 Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules of this court gives the court the power strike out a Notice of Appeal when the Appeal is not competent or for any other sufficient reason.PER CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. NIGERIAN GAS COMPANY LTD.
2. NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION Appellant(s)
AND
1. SAIPEN CONTRACTING (NIG.) LTD.
2. CHRISTIAN NKWONTA Respondent(s)
CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court Port Harcourt Judicial Division delivered on the 22/1/2002 wherein the court held that the 1st & 2nd Appellants’ (Defendants at the lower court) application challenging the jurisdiction of the court was pre-mature.
On the 19/2/13 when this appeal came up for hearing, counsel adopted their respective briefs of argument. After the adoption of briefs by counsel in this appeal, the court discovered that there was nothing on record to show that the prescribed fees were paid for the filing of the Notice of Appeal. In answer to the question put to him by the court counsel for the Appellants C. M. Isiodu Esq. admitted on record that the appropriate filing fees for the Notice of Appeal was not paid.
Order 3 Rule 25 of the Rules of this court 2002 in its 3rd Schedule under which the Notice of Appeal was filed provides for N500.00 (Five Hundred Naira) as filing fees for Notice of Appeal.
Only the receipt number was given on the said Notice of Appeal and no more.
Order 6 Rule of 7 of the 2011 Rules of this court provides thus:
“The Registrar of the court below SHALL endorse on the Notice of Appeal the fees paid thereon, receipt number and the date of payment.”
That this was not done or reflected on the Notice of Appeal is a clear testimony that fees were not paid as required by the Rules.
Even though counsel adopted their briefs in this appeal, the non payment of the appropriate fees for the filing of the Notice of Appeal in this case has rendered this appeal incompetent. There is therefore no reason to go into the merits of this appeal.
Therefore, even though counsel in this case adopted their briefs, an appeal that is incompetent cannot be said to be heard.
Order 6 Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules of this court gives the court the power strike out a Notice of Appeal when the Appeal is not competent or for any other sufficient reason.
This appeal falls squarely under appeals labelled incompetent. It ought therefore to be struck out. It is accordingly struck out.
MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.: I agree.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I am in complete agreement with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Nwosu-Iheme JCA. Rules of Court are not for decoration. They are meant to be obeyed.
I also agree that this appeal be struck out and it is hereby struck out.
Appearances
C. M. Isiodu Esq.For Appellant
AND
I. O. Kamalu for the 1st Respondent
R. A. Anyawata with J. O. Nwadawa and A. L. Mathew for the 2nd RespondentFor Respondent
