LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

Section 11(2) of the NNPC Act. That was the issue.
I have not seen any authority and none was cited
to me or contained in the briefs which say the
interpretation in NPA v. Construzioni supra is
wrong. In the absence of such an authority the
decision therein must be followed as it is sound law
and reflects how similar provisions are/have been
decided in this and other jurisdictions.
Concurrent findings of fact are rarely upset by this
court, but this court would be compelled to
interfere and upset findings of the courts below if
found to be perverse, or cannot be supported by
evidence before the court or there was a
miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle
of law or procedure. See Ogba v. State 1992 2
NWLR pt.222 p.164
Dakolo v. Dakolo 2011 46 NSCQR p.669
Concurrent findings of the courts below are that
where a plaintiff's claim is for a specific contract or
whatever claim he must serve on the defendant a
pre-action notice as provided by Section 26 of the
NICON Act, before the court can have jurisdiction
to hear his suit. This finding confirmed by the Court
of Appeal is perverse in the light of the reasoning
in NPA v. Construzioni supra which states clearly
that Section 97 of the Ports Act and similar
enactments are not intended by the legislature to
apply to specific contracts.
The concluding part of the appellant's brief reads:
"Set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and
enter judgment in favour of the appellant."
This cannot be done at this stage since there was