LawPavilion Online


Back

MARINE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. THE HON. MINISTER OF FINANCE & ORS

(2018) LPELR-43517(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 12th day of January, 2018

CA/L/633/2010


Before Their Lordships

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

MARINE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant(s)

AND

1. THE HON. MINISTER OF FINANCE
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
3. MR. KEHINDE AINA
(Carrying On Business as "AINA, BLANKSON & CO.") - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Grant of Interlocutory Injunction Pending Hearing.

FACTS:
This is an Appeal against the decision/Ruling of Shuaibu J. at the Federal High Court, Lagos delivered on 23-08-2004.

By a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim of 05-08-2004 the Appellant as Plaintiff claimed against the Respondents jointly and severally as follows:
i. A declaration that the plaintiff has fully complied with the provisions of Section 9(1) and (2) of the Insurance Act 2003 entitling it to continue in business as an insurer in the line of General Insurance business.
ii. A declaration that the cancellation of its Certificate of Registration as an insurer by the 2nd Defendant purportedly acting on the approval of the 1st Defendant is illegal, wrongful and unlawful.
iii. A declaration that the appointment by the 2nd Defendants of the 3rd Defendant as receiver/liquidator of the Plaintiff is illegal, wrongful and unlawful.
iv. An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from taking over the Plaintiff Company with a view to seeing to its being wound-up or for any other purpose.
v.An order setting aside the cancellation by the 2nd Defendant purportedly acting on the approval of the 1st Defendant of the certificate of Registration of the Plaintiff as an insurer.
vi. Further or other relief.
vii. Costs.

On the same 5th August 2004, the Appellant filed a Motion ex parte and a Motion on Notice supported by Affidavit and Exhibits and prayed the Court in the wordings of the Motion on Notice "for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants Respondents whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies from taking over the Plaintiff's/Applicant's business or in any way entering its premises for the purpose of taking over its business with a view to winding-up or liquidating the Plaintiff/Applicant company pending the determination of the case.

The Ex parte application by the Appellant came before Abimbola O. Ogie, J. on 9th August, 2004, whereby the learned trial Judge adjourned the matter and directed the Applicant to serve the order and the Court processes on the Respondents.

The matter came before A. O. Ogie, J. again on 13-08-2004 who also ordered that the respondent should appear to be heard. The Appellant's Applicant's Motion on Notice was moved before M. L. Shuaibu, J. on Tuesday 17th, August 2004 and the Ruling on the Motion the subject matter of this Appeal was delivered on 23rd August, 2004. The learned trial Judge held that on the strength of the fact that the act sought to be restrained had already been completed and the legality or otherwise of the cancellation of the certificate is the issue to be tried in the substantive suit, the Court would be reluctant to grant the orders sought. Accordingly, the interlocutory injunction was refused.

Dissatisfied with the refusal of the interlocutory application, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:
The Court determined the appeal based on the following issue for determination:
Whether the learned trial Judge properly applied the correct principles of law to the facts of the case before him in determining the Appellant's Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction.

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal lacked merit and it was accordingly dismissed.


Read Full Judgment