Case review of LONGE V. FIRST BANK PLC PAGE 1,IKEYI V. CROWN REALITIES PLC PAGE 114, ANSA & ORS V. ETIM & ANOR PAGE 139

1. CASE REVIEW OF
(2010) 6 N.W.L.R. (PT. 1189)

2.  TABLE OF CASES
 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
 DECISION
 COMMENTS/CONCLUSION

3.  LONGE V. FIRST BANK PLC PAGE 1
 IKEYI V. CROWN REALITIES PLC PAGE 114
 ANSA & ORS V. ETIM & ANOR PAGE 139

4. LONGE V. FIRST BANK PLC
PAGE I

5. - Appellant was suspended as MD/CE of Respondent and his
appointment was revoked whilst on suspension.
- He challenged the termination on the ground that he (a
director) was not given notice of the BOD’s meeting which
did the revocation in line with Section 266(1) of CAMA.
- Appellant prayed the court that lack of notice invalidates the
meeting and termination.
- FHC dismissed the action. CA dismissed his appeal and suo
motu raised the issue of the dichotomy between “Executive”
and “Non-Executive” Director. SC upheld his appeal and
ordered his reinstatement.

6.  ISSUES DECIDED BY SC
. Whether the CA was right in not considering the reply
brief in its judgment.
. Whether the CA was right in not pronouncing on the
findings of fact of the trial court that the Appellant was
appointed under the common law.
. Whether the CA was right to speculate on an issue not
before the court for determination.
. Whether the CA was right in holding that although the
Appellant was appointed pursuant to Article 105, he is
not a director within the contemplation of CAMA and
that the office of Executive Director is unknown to
CAMA.

7.  Preliminary objection to Respondent to Appellant’s issue 1 as
the judgment of CA did not turn on whether the reply was
properly filed.
ON ISSUE 1
 Appellant:
Failure to consider reply brief = denial of fair hearing.
issues not raised should not be raised by court.
ON ISSUES 2,3 & 4.
 Respondent :
suspension deprived appellant of right of notice

8.  SC
 Suspension is not removal as a director
 Absence of notice invalidates the removal
 The CA erred in raising the issue of
“executive” and “non executive director”.
 Appellant is deemed to still be the MD/CE of
the Respondent.

9.  Well reasoned judgment
 It will prevent companies from circumventing
the mandatory provisions of CAMA on
requirement of notice vis-à-vis removal of
Directors.

10. IKEYI V. CROWN
REALITIES PLC 114

11.  Appellant bought a piece of land from
Respondent.
 Appellant paid N345, 700 for connection of
the property to water and electricity.
 Appellant later sued Respondent for account
and refund of excess.
 Trial court struck out matter at PTC for want
of issue to be decided by trial court.
 CA upheld the judgment

12.  Whether TC can strike out the matter
during PTC without hearing the parties
when there are outstanding issues.
 (Denial of fair hearing).
 Whether TC was right to refuse
Appellant’s leave to amend Statement
of Claim in the light of the enactment of
an Act.

13.  ON ISSUES 1 & 2
. Appellant : non determination of issue of account was a denial of fair
hearing.
. Respondent: Having filed a detailed Statement of Account, there
was nothing from the Appellant to compare with it.
 ON ISSUE 3
. Appellant: need to amend pleadings bcs PSRA makes it illegal
for any person or org. to be involved in the G, D & T of
electricity exceeding 1MV and 100 KW, respectively without a
license from ERC
. Respondent: amendment not permitted; it would allow
appellant to create a new cause of action and therefore
prejudice the Respondent.

14.  On issues 1 & 2
. The PTC judge was right to have struck out
the matter since there were no issues left
for trial. No infringement of fair hearing.
(fair hearing is not hearing at all costs).
 On issue 3
. The PTC judge was right to refuse the
amendment; it is retroactive and
overreaching.

15.  On issue 1 & 2
. The PTC judge was wrong to have struck
out the matter, suo motu, without calling
on parties to address it on the propriety of
doing so at that stage.
 On issue 2
. The court held rightly in refusing the
application for amendment for the reasons
given by the court.

16. ANSA & ORS V. ETIM &
ANOR 139

17.  The Appellants sued for declaration of title and
trespass to land. Para 7 of the SOC states “the
act of trespass began when suit No. C/88/76 was
pending”.
 The Defendant/Appellant prayed that the
matter be struck out for being statute –barred.
The trial court struck out the matter holding that
the course of action arose over 30 years.
 CA held that the TC acted prematurely and
ordered a retrial.

18. Sole Issue:
. Whether the trial court
was right to hold that the
action was statute
barred.

19.  Appellants:
 that although the SOC did not state when the course of
action arose, they became aware of the acts of trespass
when their tenants were being harassed by Respondents and
then had to sue. That the ct ought to have called evidence to
determine when the cause of action arose.
 Respondent:
 that the action was caught by statute of limitation
 The pleadings disclose that the cause of action arose when
suit No. C/88/76 was pending.

20. CA:
 The word ‘Pending’ as used in paragraph 7 is a
continuous verb and therefore makes indeterminate the
actual time when the cause of action arose.
 Plaintiffs/Appellants had some explanations to make as
to when the cause of action arose
 it is the duty of the trial court where the date when the
cause of action arose is disputed not to determine it as a
question of fact until evidence has been called on the
issue.
 the trial judge ought to have called evidence to
determine when the cause of action arose.

21.  I agree with the CA that the SOC is
not clear as to when the cause of
action arose. It was therefore not
right for the trial judge to strike out
the matter in limine without calling
evidence to determine the actual time
the cause of action arose.