LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
never a hearing of the appellant's claim on the merits. The case was struck out without a hearing on the merits because the trial judge was of the view that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. In N.P.A. v. Construzioni Generali Supra this court said: That Section 97 of the Port Act and similar enactments are not intended by the legislature to apply to specific contracts. Also when goods have been sold and the price is to be paid upon a quantum meruit the section will not apply to an action for the price, because the refusal or omission to pay would be a failure to comply with the terms of the contract and not with the provisions of the statute. Again in NPA PLC v. Lotus Plastics Ltd. 2005 19 NWLR pt. 959 p.158. This court again said that section 97 of the Ports Act applies to everything done or omitted or neglected to be done under the powers granted by the Act. The section however does not apply to cases of specific contracts. Thus the statutory privilege granted to the Nigerian Ports Authority under section 97(1) of the Ports Act does not apply to cases of contract. This is because it would be unjust to cloth the Nigerian Ports Authority with special protection in all cases of contract as that would negate the general principles upon which the <strong>Law</strong> of Contract is based. The NPA Act and the NICON Act both say "NO Suit" in Sections 97(2) and 26(2) respectively.
Page 1 and 2:
GODWIN UGWUANYI v. NICON INSURANCE
Page 3 and 4:
2 ACTION - PLEADINGS: Whether parti
Page 5 and 6:
instant matter. That said; if I may
Page 7 and 8:
initiating any actions by due proce
Page 9 and 10:
face of the record thereafter. In o
Page 11 and 12:
(Pt.355) 171, Kano State Developmen
Page 13 and 14:
irregularity by an application chal
Page 15 and 16:
conditions to be fulfilled before a
Page 17 and 18: same shall have been served upon th
Page 19 and 20: case is in consonance with judgment
Page 21 and 22: appellant was correct not to serve
Page 23 and 24: violation of some principle of law
Page 25 and 26: Effect of unchallenged averments/de
Page 27 and 28: Dissatisfied with the decision, the
Page 29 and 30: for service of pre-action notice be
Page 31 and 32: other things not specifically there
Page 33 and 34: until repealed not having been cont
Page 35 and 36: of service agreed with NICON and no
Page 37 and 38: Act is still extant. I think I shou
Page 39 and 40: 26(2) simply put is to serve pre-ac
Page 41 and 42: severally including the appellant.
Page 43 and 44: so the appellant cannot be seen to
Page 45 and 46: corporation before the expiration o
Page 47 and 48: with the power to deal with matters
Page 49 and 50: & Ind. Engr. Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 NWLR
Page 51 and 52: this question by both parties to th
Page 53 and 54: matter. Besides, I hold this view i
Page 55 and 56: judgment of my learned brother, CHU
Page 57 and 58: NICON Act 1969 and 1990 that regula
Page 59 and 60: applicable to action based on contr
Page 61 and 62: NWLR pt.152 p.572 Obada v. M. G. of
Page 63 and 64: "...The issue in that case was a ma
Page 65 and 66: thereof, or any officer of a local
Page 67: struck out the case for lack of jur
show all

LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?