Extent of the Powers of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria

CASE TITLE: GOLD & ANOR V. AMCON (2022) LPELR-57232(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 5^TH APRIL, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: GOVERNMENT AGENCY

LEAD JUDGMENT: FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the powers of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria and other procedural matters.

FACTS

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court Ibadan Division Holden at Ibadan, delivered on 10th October 2017 and the judgment of the same Court delivered on the 6th of June 2019 in Suit Nos: FHC/IB/CS/112/2017.

The Respondent took out a General Claim Form pursuant to Part 3.1(4) of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Practice Direction, 2013 and filed a Statement of Claim which was subsequently amended. By the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 7th May 2019, the Respondent as Claimant claimed against the Appellants (as Defendants) jointly and severally some declaratory reliefs and orders.

In the Amended Statement of Claim of the Respondents, the Respondent averred that it bought over the non-performing loan granted the 1st Appellant by United Bank for Africa Plc. It claimed that the outstanding and unpaid loan facility was assigned to her vide a Loan Purchase Agreement. According to her, all rights including the right to institute the action were assigned and transferred to her.

In the Appellants’ Statement of Defence and Counter Claim, their case was that the 1st Appellant was not indebted to the United Bank for Africa but the bank on the other hand owed him the sum of N61,630,163:61k. They contended that the bank had nothing to assign to the Respondent.

Upon being served with the originating processes, the Appellants filed a joint Statement of Defence in which they incorporated a Counter Claim. Parties joined issues vide their pleadings on whether or not there was an existing debt capable of being transferred and the case went on to trial. At the end of the day, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment and found in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

In determining the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the following issues:

(1) Whether the decision of the trial Court refusing the application made to it by the Appellants to join United Bank for Africa Plc as the 2nd Claimant in the suit before it occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

(2) Whether the ex-parte orders freezing the Bank accounts of the 1st and 2nd Appellants and sealing the house of the 2nd Appellant pending the final determination of the substantive suit were unlawful. 

(3) Whether the preservative orders granted ex-parte by the trial Court did not abate upon delivery of the judgment discharging same. 

(4) Whether the trial Court was right when it held that Exhibits DE and DF which are the Reports prepared by DW11 did not consider the terms and conditions of the credit facility granted to the 1st Appellant.

DECISION/HELD

On the whole, having resolved all the issues in the appeal against the Respondent, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal had merit and should be allowed.

RATIOS:

• GOVERNMENT AGENCY – ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA: Condition(s) to be satisfied for AMCON to seek and obtain an order of Court to freeze the bank account or take possession of a property under Section 49 of the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria Act
• GOVERNMENT AGENCY – ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA: Position of the law as regards acquisition of eligible bank assets by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria from Nigerian banks
• EQUITABLE REMEDY – INTERLOCUTORY/INTERIM INJUNCTIONS: Distinction between interlocutory/interim injunction
• ACTION – CLAIM FOR INTEREST: Duty of a party claiming interest and other miscellaneous charges