24 BUSINESS DAY C002D5556 Thursday <strong>05</strong> <strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2018</strong>
Thursday <strong>05</strong> <strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2018</strong> C002D5556 BUSINESS DAY 25 BDLegalBusiness Business Law Industry Report Practice Intelligence Partnerships Manufacturer, CPC react over blue band “spread” controversy Following the release of a video online demonstrating how Blue Band “Spread for Bread” (a product of Unilever Nigeria PLC) reacts under certain heat conditions, with suggestions that the product may be unsafe for consumption, the manufacturer of the product has made attempts to address public concern by differentiating its products and explaining the purposes of the two different products. Reacting to this, the Consumer Protection Council (CPC) Tunde Irukera, Director General, Consumer Protection Council released a statement this week, announcing that it has opened an inquiry to determine the safety of the product, and to clarify aspects of the manufacturer’s statements. According to the CPC, the purpose of this inquiry was to ensure the products, differentiated or otherwise, are safe and subjected to proper processes, and “in-trade” handling consistent with the different properties and characteristics of each product. The Consumer Protection Council in the same statement, offered scientific information and explanation for the reactions displayed in the video. It read in part, “Available scientific information confirms that, though butter, margarine, and spread appear analogous, and share similar components, characteristics and uses, they are different products available to consumers. Butter and margarine share a particular similar characteristic; low resistance to heat. As such, both are likely to melt when subjected to certain levels of heat. Spreads however, have varying heat resistance, depending on intended use, and production process. As a result, it is not necessarily unsafe that a spread does not melt under similar heat conditions as butter, or margarine.” It explained further that spreads are produced in part by adding emulsifiers, which are additives used in stabilizing and binding processed foods. They are not inherently unsafe or uncommon. The specific emulsifying agent and amount used, largely depends on many factors including shelf life, storage, handling and climatic conditions in order to prevent microbial activity. The council however disclosed that it would go ahead with its inquiry on the product, to determine its safety and also clarify aspects of the manufacturer’s statements. “The Council continues to collaborate with NAFDAC and SON regarding applicable safety standards, but advises that consumption of butter, margarine or spreads generally are not unsafe,” the statement read. SLP looking to re-tool legal practice in Nigeria …Promises far-reaching discourse in Port Harcourt THEODORA KIO-LAWSON After several months of inactivity, the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal practice (SLP) is coming all out to change the face of legal practice in Nigeria with its forthcoming conference scheduled to hold in Port - Harcourt from Thursday <strong>Apr</strong>il 12th to Friday the 15th, <strong>2018</strong>. The conference, which is themed, “Re-thinking and Re-tooling legal practice for the challenges of our time” is expected to bring together leaders and members of the bar from various branches across the country to deliberate and possibly chart a course for the development of the profession in Nigeria. The Chair of the Section, Mia Essien, SAN who spoke about the conference and its chosen theme, disclosed that several areas of practice, needed rethinking and re-tooling. “But let me take professional ethics,” she said. “The complaints against lawyers and allegations of sharp practices have increased and is reaching a crescendo. Lawyers are being suspended, disbarred etc. We need to address that. That is the starting point and as the Section on Legal Practice that is definitely the first place to start.” She continued, “As Legal practitioners, we render a services. We must remember the duties we owe to the court, to our clients, our colleagues and the larger society. In the quest to make money many have forgotten what is ethical and what is not. “Therefore, to retool ourselves to become relevant, we must now take a look back at where we are coming from, where we are right now and where we need to be, which is why for our first session we have put together a formidable panel led by Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, SAN, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA); Yemi Candide-Johnson, SAN, President of the Lagos Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); and Etigwe Uwa SAN, to take us through what the law is, what is the reality and what we expect in the future.” Essien, who spoke further about the relationship between the bar (lawyers) and the bench (judges) announced that there would be a special session focused on this. “The session has to do with managing our symbiotic relationship. Hopefully we will be able to talk about our relationship bearing in mind that to be on the bench you must come from the bar. Fortunately Hon. Justice Gumel the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, who is very passionate about the bar, will be speaking from the perspective of the bench while Y. Maikyau, SAN will be speaking from the Bar’s perspective. It will be very engaging and interactive. A lot of lawyers and invited guests are looking forward to that session,” she said. Speaking of the involvement with the national executive of the NBA towards this feat, the learned senior advocate disclosed that the NBA ExCo was not only a worthy partner in this wheel of progress, but also a partner towards the success of the conference. “And if you go to our website, you will see it is listed as such. In fact, they are sponsoring25younglawyerstoattend theconference.ThePresidentalsohas a session at our conference. So the Continues on page 27 Limitation of actions: Time freezes while litigation is pending Reported by Winifred Tayo-Oyetibo On 16 February <strong>2018</strong>, the Supreme Court in Appeal No.: SC/417/2015 – Sifax (Nig.) Ltd & 4 Ors. v. Migfo (Nig.) Ltd & Anor, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the limitation period shall not count during the pendency of an earlier suit. Background The Respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 1st Appellant, that they may jointly bid for the concession and joint management of Terminal “C”, Tin Can Island Port, Apapa, Lagos, by the Federal Government through the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Nigerian Ports Authority. Parties agreed that in the event that the bid was successful, they would incorporate a joint venture company, to achieve the objectives of the bid. However, on winning the bid, the 1st, 3rd& 4th Appellants secretly incorporated a joint-venture company, the 5th Appellant, excluding the Respondents. On realising the deed of the 1st, 3rd& 5th Appellants, counsel for the Respondents promptly conducted a company search at the Corporate Affairs Commission, Abuja (“the CAC”)and discovered that indeed the 5th Appellant had been incorporated. Thus, aggrieved by the acts of the 1st, 3rd& 5thAppellants, the Respondents promptly filed an action against the Appellants at the Federal High Court in 2006,which gave Judgment in their favour. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court, but on further appeal to the Supreme Court in 2012, the Supreme Court struck out the suit on the basis that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. As a result, the Respondents promptly filed a suit at the High Court of Lagos State (‘the High Court’) on July 2012.The Appellants filed an application at the court inter alia challenging its jurisdiction to hear the suit on the grounds that it was statutebarred, having been allegedly filed after the 6-year period as contained in section 8(1) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State. In response to this application, the Respondents inter alia argued that whilst the initial action filed by them in the Federal High Court was pending, time did not run but was frozen, citing ‘Limitation Period’ written by Andrew McGee, a foreign author. Thus, their action was not statute-barred. The High Court agreed with Respondents’ counsel’s argument in this regard and relied on this book, in delivering its Ruling in favour of the Respondents. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Judgment of the High Court. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. Issues for Determination The Supreme Court considered the following issues: Whether having regard to the clear provisions of the Limitation Law, Lagos State vis-à-vis the Respondents’ claim as per their statement of claim dated 18 July, 2012, the lower court was not in grave error in affirming the trial court’s finding that the Respondents’ action is not statute barred? Whether the lower court was not in er- Continues on page 27
Change language