CASE TITLE: GULF AGENCY & SHIPPING (NIG.) LTD & ANOR V. GULF AZOV SHIPPING CO. LTD & ORS (2026) LPELR-83263(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH MARCH, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal was lodged against the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, Lagos State (the trial Court), delivered on November 13, 2003, coram A. A. B. Gumel, J.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, by an ex parte application, sought to register the interim payment Order in the summary judgment of the Queen’s Bench Division Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in England, delivered by Justice Langley on 26/11/1999. G.A.A.T. Jinadu, J., then Judge of the trial Court, heard and granted the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ ex-parte application for the judgment to be registered as a Judgment of the Federal High Court.
The 3rd and 4th Respondents filed an application to set aside the registration of the judgment. Before the application could be heard, the Jinadu, J., retired from service. The matter was later transferred to Nnamani J., before whom the 3rd and 4th Respondents filed another motion to join the Appellants, and the 5th Respondent, as well as a third motion containing 19 declaratory and three ancillary reliefs. Nnamani J., was transferred before the application was heard.
The applications then came before A.A.B. Gumel, J., for hearing. The Appellants filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ application for joinder. The lower Court chose to hear the application for joinder first, and proceeded to grant it. The 3rd and 4th Respondents’ application for declaratory reliefs was also heard. While the 19 declaratory reliefs were refused, 2 ancillary orders were granted by the trial Court on 13/11/2003. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the Appellants filed the instant appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on these issues:
1. Whether the lower Court did and rightly so, suo motu set aside the registration of the foreign judgment, and whether it extended to setting aside the foreign judgment itself.
2. Whether having held that the declaratory reliefs were incompetent, the lower Court had the jurisdiction to grant reliefs 20 and 21 contained in the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ motion dated 13/5/2002 and filed 14/5/2002.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S): Whether the Court can grant a relief not claimed
- ACTION- ANCILLARY/MAIN CLAIM(S): Effect of failure of a main claim on ancillary claims
- ACTION- CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S): Whether the Court can grant a relief not claimed
- APPEAL- BRIEF OF ARGUMENT: Whether counsel is allowed to give evidence in his brief of argument
- COURT- RECORD(S) OF COURT/PROCEEDING: Whether Courts are bound by their record
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER- CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER: Nature of consequential order; whether it can be made where the principal relief fails or to grant an unclaimed relief
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
