(2018) LPELR-44116(CA)
|
|
- Clyde Arnold
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EKIYE v. FRCN CITATION: CHIDI NWAOMA UWA HAMMA AKAWU BARKA In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/54/91 BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO MAURICE EZEONEBI EKIYE Before Their Lordships: Between And FEDERAL RADIO CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (FRCN) Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal - Appellant(s) RATIO DECIDENDI - Respondent(s)
2 1. DAMAGES - SPECIAL DAMAGES: Meaning and nature of special damages "In the case of ARISONS TRADING & ENGINEERING CO. LTD VS. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS (2009) LPELR (SC) special damages was defined by the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu, JSC at P. 57, paras C- F thus: "Special damages have been defined as damages of the type as the law will not infer from the nature of the act, they do not flow in the ordinary course; they are exceptional in their character and therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly. See, the cases of STROMS BRUKS AKTIE BOLAG VS. HUTCHISON (1905) A.C PER LORD MACHNAGHTEN; INCAR NIG. LTD & ANOR VS. MRS. M.R. ADEGBOYE (1985) NWLR (PT. 8) 454; EKENNIA VS. NKPAKARA & 2 ORS. (1997) 5 SCNJ 90; BADMUS & ANOR VS. ABEGUNDE (1999) NWLR (PT. 627) 502; (1999) 7 SCNJ 96 and THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. OF NIGERIA vs. CHIEF TIEBO VII (2005) 4 SCNJ 57; (2005) 3-4 SC 137." See, also OBASUYI VS. BUSINESS VENTURES (supra) and NGILARI VS. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR (SC) PP , PARAS F - D, to the effect that in a claim for special damages for loss of earnings the plaintiff must specifically plead with particulars but, also lead real and credible evidence in proof thereof."per UWA, J.C.A. (Pp. 9-11, Paras. F-A) - read in context
3 2. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SPECULATION: Whether Court can act on speculations " I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel to the appellant that the trial Court was wrong to have refused the award of special damages based on issues that were not certain, if the appellant had continued in the respondent's employment. The Court is to decide on questions of law based on the facts of each case, not abstract and hypothetical questions of 'ifs'. In ASANYA VS. STATE (supra) at P. 465, PARA H, the Supreme Court on the duty of the Court to act on facts established before it held that: "It is a well settled principle of the administration of justice that the Court is bound by the facts of the case established before it. Consequently, the judgment of the Court must necessarily be limited to and confined within the parameters of the facts as established." The respondent did not raise these questions of uncertainties as to what might have happened if the appellant had continued in their employment. In the case of IKENTA BEST (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE (2008) LPELR (SC) the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu, JSC in respect of whether Courts or parties are allowed to speculate held that: "... Speculation has no place in our Courts. Neither the parties nor the Court is permitted or entitled, to speculate anything." See, also, HANI AKAR ENTERPRISES LTD VS. INDO (NIG) MERCHANT BANK LTD (2010) LPELR (CA) P. 14. PARA. C, (2011) 1 NWLR (PT. 1228) P and UNITY BANK PLC VS. RAYBAM ENGINEERING LTD. (2017) LPELR (CA) P. 19. PARAS. D - F."Per UWA, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. D-E) - read in context
4 CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The High Court of Lagos State presided over by J.A. Oduneye, J. in its judgment delivered on the 23rd day of November, 1990 where the Appellant was the plaintiff, granted the appellant part of his claims before the trial Court. The appeal is in respect of part of the judgment the appellant is unhappy with. The appellant before the trial Court commenced his action by a writ of summons taken out on the 19th day of October, 1987 where he claimed against the Respondent Special and General Damages for wrongful termination of his appointment. The background facts are that the appellant joined the employment of the Respondent in 1969 as a News Assistant Trainee at the age of 26 years. He rose to be the Principal Editor of the respondent in 1979 which post he held till 1980 when he applied for study leave with pay. The application for study leave with pay was rejected but, he was granted study leave without pay. The Appellant returned to Nigeria from the United States of America (where he went to study) in 1985 and reported back to work on the 18th of November,
5 There was no communication to him while abroad that his services would no longer be needed. He served as a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Member with the Respondent. Upon the completion of his NYSC, he applied for re-absorption but, his application was turned down. He later got a letter from the Respondent placing him on temporary appointment. He was allowed to continue his work on his salary as Editor with all the fringe benefits as a Permanent Staff. The Appellant gave evidence that the temporary appointment was later terminated. The appellant claimed special damages, which is the salary of a Grade Level 10 officer from January, 1987 to August 2003 and all the fringe benefits attached thereto. He also sought for gratuity till the age of 60, loss of pensions and general damages assessed at N30, The appellant's witness testified that in January, 1988 that there were circulars on salary and fringe benefits for officers in the Public Service tendered as Exhibits "M", "N", "O" and "P" without objection, pages of the printed records. On the part of the Respondent, there was evidence adduced that the Appellant upon his return 2
6 from study leave did not apply for temporary appointment but re-absorption into the Respondent's employment. It was also confirmed that the appellant went to the United States of America to study Public Communication a relevant course to the work of the Respondent. The Appellant was a pensionable and permanent staff of the Respondent up till the time the appellant went on study leave. It was confirmed that the appellant did not accept the two weeks salary offered to him. Further, that all civil servants including the Respondent's staff were entitled to enjoy the improved salary in Exhibits "M", "N" and "O". At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found in favour of the Appellant and held as follows: (1) "The re-absorption of the plaintiff should be automatic and could therefore not be subject to a rejection. (2) The plaintiff is entitled to his salary and allowances upon to the date the judgment is delivered and that (3) That plaintiff is also entitled to his pension and gratuity." See, pages of the printed records. The learned trial judge did not enter judgment in favour of the Appellant for Special 3
7 Damages in respect of what the appellant would have earned if the contract of employment had lasted the full course which is until the appellant turned sixty (60) years of age by which time the Appellant would retire. It is the non-grant of the Special Damages that gave rise to the appeal. The Appellant identified the following two (2) issues for the determination of the appeal thus: 1. "Whether the Appellant sufficiently pleaded and specifically proved by credible evidence the special damages which he claimed and which were not awarded to him by the lower Court. 2. Whether the learned trial judge was wrong in refusing to award special damages to the Plaintiff/Appellant as per his Writ of Summons/Statement of Claim even though same was proved by him." The Respondent on its part distilled a sole issue for the determination of the appeal thus: "Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is entitled to special damages as per his writ of summons and amended statement of claim dated 14th June, 1988." (Grounds 1 and 2) In arguing his first issue, the learned counsel to the appellant Adebowale Kamoru Esq. relied on 4
8 his further amended brief of argument filed on 7/3/17 but, deemed filed and served on 13/3/17, adopted same as his argument in urging us to allow the appeal. The particulars of the Special Damages claimed by the appellant in his Amended Statement of Claim were itemized as follows: PARTICULARS OF DAMAGES 1. "SALARY (a) GL. 10 Step N Per Month = N6, (b) GL. 10 Step 4-151/1/88-31/12/99 12 years N8, 232 x , 382 = N141, (c) GL. 10 Step 15 1/1/ /12/ N15,382 per year =N46, (d) GL. 10 Step 15 1/1/ /8/ Months 17 N1, Per Month =N9, LEAVE TRANSPORT GRANT (a) N = (b) : 16 N300 Per Year =4, RENT SUPLEMENT (a) N55 Per Month =660,00 (b) 20 0/ of Salary (1,(b) - (d) Above i.e. N197, x20 =39, TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE (a) N45 Per Month = (b) January, 1988-August, 2003, i.e. 15 years, 8 Months or Per Month =21, GRATUITY FOR 34 YEARS SERVICE 5
9 @ N15,382 X 2.90 =44, PENSION for minimum of 5 years N15,382 x 68 x 5=52, MEAL SUBSIDY: N1.00 Per working day = 4, Total SPECIAL DAMAGES = N372, GENERAL DAMAGES = N30, N402,848.49" With proof of special Damages, it was submitted that in a claim for loss of earnings the plaintiff must prove and lead evidence in strict proof thereof which would be useful for evaluation and assessment. See, SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. HRH CHIEF G.B.A. TIEBO VII & 4 ORS (1996) 4 NWLR PT. 445 PG. 657 at 661 and WARNER & WARNER INTERNATIONAL VS. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 298) 148 PARA. 680 amongst others. It was submitted that by the appellant's pleadings, evidence adduced at the trial and the evidence of the PW2 the appellant satisfied the requirements of proof of Special Damages. See, OBASUYI VS. BUSINESS VENTURES LTD (2000) 5 NWLR (PT. 658) PAGE 673 at 697, PARAS.G-H. We were urged to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant. Under the appellant's second issue, it was submitted that the trial Court was right to have held
10 6
11 that the Appellant's employment with the Respondent was unlawfully terminated but, wrong to have failed to award special damages as claimed by the Appellant. It was submitted that the trial Court was wrong to have gone into a voyage of speculations as to uncertainties as to whether the appellant would have been retired before the age of sixty (60) on attaining the age of forty five (45). It was argued that what might have happened in the future was not part of the Respondent's defence at the trial Court. It was argued that the Court's decision should be limited to what was argued before it. See, ASANYA VS. STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 180) PAGE 422 at 436. It was the contention of the appellant that the trial Court ought to have awarded the special damages claimed by the appellant which was the estimated income for the entire period of employment till retirement, moreso where the trial Court found that the appellant's employment was wrongfully terminated, therefore he was entitled to his salary and entitlements for the period for which he should have been retained in the respondent's employment. See, FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. ANYANWU (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 501) 7
12 PAGE 533 at 540 and BALOGUN VS. AGBOOLA (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 2) 66. It was concluded that the trial Court's finding of facts leading to the award of special damages in part was unassailable but, was wrong not to have awarded the full special damages claimed by the Appellant having found that the appellant's employment was unlawfully terminated. We were urged to allow the appeal. The learned counsel to the respondent, N.J. Inyang Esq. relied on and adopted as his argument in his brief of argument filed on 23/2/17 but, deemed filed on 13/3/17 in urging us to dismiss the appeal. It was submitted that special damages must be pleaded and proved. See, DANIEL HOLDINGS LTD. VS. U.B.A. PLC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) at PAGE 548, PARAGRAPHS G - H. It was argued that the appellant pleaded special damages but, failed to prove same. It was submitted that the Court would refuse to grant an unreasonable exaggerated and oppressive claim for damages, and that it is an implicit consideration that would always guide a Court in the grant of damages claimed or awarded. Further, that special damages must be direct and not speculative. It was submitted that the claim sky 8
13 rocketed from N187, to N372, therefore leaving a doubt as to the true state of things assuming without conceding that the appellant is entitled to the award of damages, reliance was placed on the case of U.B.N. vs. AJABULE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) PAGE 152 at PAGE 174, PARAGRAPH E. It was re-argued that the appellant particularized his claims but, failed to strictly prove same at the trial. The claims were said to be speculative. We were urged to hold that the appellant did not prove his claim in his Amended Statement of claim in the manner and standard required by law for the proof of damages. I have examined the issues distilled by the parties and would utilize the sole issue distilled by the respondent in determining the appeal, as it encompasses the two issues identified by the appellant, that is: whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellant is entitled to special damages as per his writ of summons and amended statement of claim dated 14th June, The parties agreed on the meaning of special damages. In the case of ARISONS TRADING & ENGINEERING CO. LTD VS. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS (2009) LPELR 9
14 - 554 (SC) special damages was defined by the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu, JSC at P. 57, paras C- F thus: "Special damages have been defined as damages of the type as the law will not infer from the nature of the act, they do not flow in the ordinary course; they are exceptional in their character and therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly. See, the cases of STROMS BRUKS AKTIE BOLAG VS. HUTCHISON (1905) A.C PER LORD MACHNAGHTEN; INCAR NIG. LTD & ANOR VS. MRS. M.R. ADEGBOYE (1985) NWLR (PT. 8) 454; EKENNIA VS. NKPAKARA & 2 ORS. (1997) 5 SCNJ 90; BADMUS & ANOR VS. ABEGUNDE (1999) NWLR (PT. 627) 502; (1999) 7 SCNJ 96 and THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. OF NIGERIA vs. CHIEF TIEBO VII (2005) 4 SCNJ 57; (2005) 3-4 SC 137." See, also OBASUYI VS. BUSINESS VENTURES (supra) and NGILARI VS. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR (SC) PP , PARAS F - D, to the effect that in a claim for special damages for loss of earnings the plaintiff must specifically plead with particulars but, also lead real and 10
15 credible evidence in proof thereof. In paragraph 5 of the Appellant's amended statement of claim, he pleaded as follows: 5. "Plaintiff's application for study leave with pay was rejected but he was granted study leave without pay which "ensures Continuity of service for pension purposes" Vide Defendant's Letter CP: 4795/54 dated 21/8/80." The particulars of the damages were pleaded covering general and special damages in paragraph 14 of the amended statement of claim, pages of the printed records of appeal. In the oral evidence of the appellant, he gave detailed evidence of the relationship between him and the respondent, his former employer before and after his study leave without pay which was approved by the respondent. The PW2 also tendered evidence as to the salary of officers in public service. The respondent challenged the appellant s claim. At the close of the trial, the learned trial judge after evaluating the evidence before the trial court, made its findings. I will hereunder reproduce parts of the findings of the trial court at pages of the printed records thus: "It is not in dispute that when the 11
16 plaintiff came back from USA he did his NYSC with the defendant who was paying the plaintiff his normal salary instead of the NYSC allowance. This salary was being taxed and the plaintiff was paid other fringe benefits as he used to get before he went on study leave. It is important to determine and settle Exhibit 'G' and 'I' which are the two letters of re absorption written by the plaintiff. There is nothing before the Court to show that Exhibit 'T' which contains the condition for re-absorption was ever received by the plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff never signed the acknowledgment form at the bottom of Exhibit 'T' As I have stated earlier, the plaintiff did sign (sic) the acknowledgment form in Exhibit 'T' and this coupled with the fact that there is no evidence that Exhibit 'T' was posted or received by the plaintiff, I have no hesitation in holding that the condition for re-absorption contained in Exhibit 'T' did not apply to the plaintiff. I also hold that the plaintiff was not aware of the re-absorption condition but wrote Exhibit 'G' and 'I' to put his name back on the defendant's pay roll. I also hold that the reabsorption of the 12
17 plaintiff should be automatic and could therefore not be subject to a rejection." Further, at page 94 of the printed records, the learned trial judge continued: "It is clear from the above that both Exhibit 'J' and 'K1' could not be regarded as letters of termination in that both did not give the statutory one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice. In fact, Exhibit 'J' and 'K1' are rejection letters of the application of the plaintiff for reabsorption. I have held earlier that re-absorption of the plaintiff should be automatic and is not subject to any rejection. This means that Exhibits 'J' and 'K1' are not valid and as such they do not affect the right or fate of the plaintiff. Perhaps, I should state that Exhibit 'K' which is the letter offering the plaintiff a temporary appointment is also not valid in that you cannot offer a temporary appointment to a confirmed and pensionable staff like the plaintiff in this case. I therefore hold that the defendant corporation in writing Exhibits 'J' and 'K1" wrongfully terminated the appointment of the plaintiff." The appellant had sought special and general damages for wrongful 13
18 termination of his appointment which the learned trial judge has held to be invalid. Also, that a temporary appointment cannot be offered to a pensionable staff like the appellant and that the termination of the appellant's appointment was wrong and gave his reasons for arriving at its findings. It is noteworthy that there is no appeal by the respondent against these findings of the trial Court. The trial Court in conclusion at page 97 of the printed records held thus: "I therefore hold that the plaintiff is entitled to his salary and allowances up to the time of judgment. As stated above, I have held that the plaintiff is also entitled to Pension and gratuity. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to his salary and allowances up to the date the judgment is delivered. He is also entitled to his pension and gratuity." The learned trial judge held that the appellant's termination of appointment was invalid and that his restatement after the study leave without pay should be automatic and was not subject to any rejection. Also, that the appellant was entitled to his salaries, allowances up till the date of the judgment of the trial Court, entitled to 14
19 his pension and gratuity. It is the aspect of limiting the entitlement to the date the judgment of the trial Court is delivered that is the crux of the appeal. The reasons the trial Court gave were that there was no guarantee that the appellant would have worked till the age of sixty (60) years which is the retirement age; that the plaintiff's appointment could have been terminated, the respondent could have retired the appellant after the appellant attains forty five (45) years of age before the age of sixty (60) and that the appellant qualified for pension having worked for more than fifteen (15) years for the respondent, In my view, these reasons are speculative. I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel to the appellant that the trial Court was wrong to have refused the award of special damages based on issues that were not certain, if the appellant had continued in the respondent's employment. The Court is to decide on questions of law based on the facts of each case, not abstract and hypothetical questions of 'ifs'. In ASANYA VS. STATE (supra) at P. 465, PARA H, the Supreme Court on the duty of the Court to act on facts established before it 15
20 held that: "It is a well settled principle of the administration of justice that the Court is bound by the facts of the case established before it. Consequently, the judgment of the Court must necessarily be limited to and confined within the parameters of the facts as established." The respondent did not raise these questions of uncertainties as to what might have happened if the appellant had continued in their employment. In the case of IKENTA BEST (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE (2008) LPELR (SC) the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu, JSC in respect of whether Courts or parties are allowed to speculate held that: "... Speculation has no place in our Courts. Neither the parties nor the Court is permitted or entitled, to speculate anything." See, also, HANI AKAR ENTERPRISES LTD VS. INDO (NIG) MERCHANT BANK LTD (2010) LPELR (CA) P. 14. PARA. C, (2011) 1 NWLR (PT. 1228) P and UNITY BANK PLC VS. RAYBAM ENGINEERING LTD. (2017) LPELR (CA) P. 19. PARAS. D - F. The learned counsel to the respondent was of the view that the amount claimed was unreasonable, speculative, exaggerated and 16
21 oppressive. I am of a contrary view, considering the amount claimed and the depreciation of our currency between then and now. Even if the special damages had been awarded by the trial Court, there is nothing on record to show that the amount claimed as damages was exaggerated or inflated thus making it unreasonable. The respondent did not also make out or prove that the amount was unreasonable, exaggerated and oppressive. The appellant pleaded the particulars of the damages claimed, which was not faulted by the respondent. The appellant gave details of his computation as to how he arrived at the amount claimed as special damages, which he pleaded and supported by evidence which was not faulted, that is: his salary at G.L. 10 from January, 1987 to August, 2003 with all the fringe benefits attached as well as his gratuity till the age of 60 years when he would have retired and pension, with general damages of N30, (Thirty Thousand Naira). From the findings and opinion of the trial Court to the effect that the Appellant's employment was wrongfully terminated leading to the award of damages in part, I hold that the appellant is entitled to his 17
22 salary and entitlements for the entire period he should have been retained in the respondent's employment, that is all that he should have earned till retirement at the age of sixty (60) years. The appellant is entitled to the full award of special and general damages. In the final analysis, I allow the appeal and grant in full the special and general damages as per the appellant's claim. I award costs of N50, (Fifty Thousand Naira) to the Appellant. HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I AGREE. BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I agree. 18
23 Appearances: Adebowale Kamoru Esq. with him, Mariam Pedro Esq. For Appellant(s) N.J. Inyang Esq. For Respondent(s)
(2018) LPELR-44010(CA)
LAFFERI (NIG) LTD v. HON. MIN OF FCT & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Abuja Judicial Division Holden at Abuja ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA TANI YUSUF HASSAN MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA ON TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY,
More information(2016) LPELR-40231(CA)
JIGNA FARMS LTD v. UBN PLC CITATION: ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA TANI YUSUF HASSAN JOSEPH EYO EKANEM In the Court of Appeal In the Abuja Judicial Division Holden at Abuja ON MONDAY, 21ST MARCH, 2016 Suit No:
More information(2018) LPELR-43670(CA)
ADIC LTD v. ZUMAX (NIG) LTD CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON TUESDAY, 16TH JANUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/413/2011 MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE HAMMA AKAWU BARKA
More information(2018) LPELR-44741(CA)
DEVELOPMENT POLICY CENTRE v. OLANIRAN CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Ibadan Judicial Division Holden at Ibadan CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI NONYEREM OKORONKWO ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH
More informationIntroduction. Const. Ltd (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) p 128
The Exclusive Jurisdiction of The Federal High Court in relation to the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act CAP C20 LFN 2008- the need for a touchstone jurisdictional test. A review of the
More informationLITIGATION UPDATE JULY & AUGUST, RD FLOOR, LAW UNION & ROCK HOUSE, 14 HUGHES AVENUE, ALAGOMEJI, YABA, LAGOS, NIGERIA..
LITIGATION UPDATE JULY & AUGUST, 2018 3RD FLOOR, LAW UNION & ROCK HOUSE, 14 HUGHES AVENUE, ALAGOMEJI, YABA, LAGOS, NIGERIA.. JULY 2018 WHAT TYPE OF COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO 100% CAPITAL ALLOWANCE UNDER
More information(2018) LPELR-44309(CA)
UDO v. EKPENYONG & ANOR CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON MONDAY, 29TH JANUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/C/372/2014 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM MOHAMMED
More information(2018) LPELR-45690(CA)
NDARABI v. KOLOBIJI CITATION: CHIDI NWAOMA UWA HAMMA AKAWU BARKA In the Court of Appeal In the Ilorin Judicial Division Holden at Ilorin BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO MUSTAPHA SHUAIB NDARABI MR. MUSA SADIQ KOLOBIJI
More information(2018) LPELR-43476(CA)
GFL MARINE SERVICES LTD v. FRN CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON THURSDAY, 11TH JANUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/1045CB/2016 MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA TIJJANI ABUBAKAR
More informationNIGERIA. Dorothy Ufot. Dorothy Ufot & Co
NIGERIA Dorothy Ufot Dorothy Ufot & Co PUBLIC POLICY AS A GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE OR FOR THE REFUSAL OF ENFORCEMENT OR RECOGNITION OF AWARDS UNDER THE NEW YORK CONVENTION. By Dorothy Ufot, SAN, FCIArb.(UK)
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA DON ACKAH - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VRS. JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA CORAM: 1. AKAMBA J. A. PRESIDING 2. QUAYE J. A. 3. MARFUL-SAU J. A SUIT NO. HI/185/07 13 th DECEMBER 2007 DON ACKAH - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
More information(2018) LPELR-43674(CA)
CANSCO DUBAI LLC v. SEAWOLF OILFIELD SERVICES LTD & ANOR CITATION: CHIDI NWAOMA UWA HAMMA AKAWU BARKA In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON MONDAY, 15TH JANUARY, 2018
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ZANZIBAR CIVIL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2013 (CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., LUANDA, AND J.A. And JUMA, J.A.) HOTELS AND LODGES (T) LIMITED..... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More information(2018) LPELR-44127(CA)
BADABAI v. ALJANNA CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto ON WEDNESDAY, 28TH MARCH, 2018 Suit No: CA/S/65S/2017 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD
MONTSERRAT CIVIL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS and SARAH GERALD Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC The Hon Madam Suzie d Auvergne
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 RSA No. 38/2014 & CM No.2339/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 4th February,2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 RSA No. 38/2014 & CM No.2339/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 4th February,2014 SHRI SHIV PAUL SAGAR...Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay
More information(2018) LPELR-45106(CA)
TONIQUE OIL SERVICES LTD v. AMCON CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR ON WEDNESDAY, 9TH MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/555/2014 UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civ. App. No. 136 of 2006 BETWEEN REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND HOMAD MAHARAJ KOWSIL MAHARAJ JASSODRA MAHARAJ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS
More informationG.R.F DALLEY & PARTNERS
G.R.F DALLEY & PARTNERS 31.10.2012 NIGERIA BANKING THE SCOPE OF BANKING BUSINESS DEFINED Recently, Honourable Justice B.F.M Nyako of the Federal High Court, Lagos, Nigeria, was invited to determine the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 16th December, 2013 RFA No.581/2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 16th December, 2013 RFA No.581/2013 SUNIL GUPTA Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Adv.... Appellant Versus HARISH
More informationLITIGATION UPDATE AUGUST, 2017
LITIGATION UPDATE AUGUST, 2017 3RD FLOOR, LAW UNION & ROCK HOUSE, 14 HUGHES AVENUE, ALAGOMEJI, YABA, LAGOS, NIGERIA.. THE RIGHTS OF AN ALIEN TO ACQUIRE LAND UNDER THE LAND USE ACT CAP L5 LAWS OF THE FEDERAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 214 of 2010 BETWEEN ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] APPELLANT AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: Citation: City of St. John's v. St. John's International Airport Authority, 2017 NLCA 21 Date: March 27, 2017 Docket: 201601H0002
More informationCASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :
CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS
More informationLITIGATION UPDATE JUNE, RD FLOOR, LAW UNION & ROCK HOUSE, 14 HUGHES AVENUE, ALAGOMEJI, YABA, LAGOS, NIGERIA..
LITIGATION UPDATE JUNE, 2017 3RD FLOOR, LAW UNION & ROCK HOUSE, 14 HUGHES AVENUE, ALAGOMEJI, YABA, LAGOS, NIGERIA.. In our Litigation update for this month, we shall be reviewing 2 important cases. The
More informationN UNDER ENABLING ACT NOT IN CONFLICT WITH JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OVER TAX DISPUTES By Ibifubara Berenibara 1
T N UNDER ENABLING ACT NOT IN CONFLICT WITH JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OVER TAX DISPUTES By Ibifubara Berenibara 1 Introduction The Court of Appeal has on 10 March 2017 confirmed that the jurisdiction
More information(2018) LPELR-45267(CA)
LIYAFA v. KYAUTA CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto ON WEDNESDAY, 11TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/S/41S/2017 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK
More information(2018) LPELR-44754(CA)
ECOBANK (NIG) PLC v. IDOGHO & ORS CITATION: PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE In the Court of Appeal In the Benin Judicial Division Holden at Benin ON THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2018 Suit No: CA/B/30/2015 Before Their Lordships:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2009 BETWEEN ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More information(2018) LPELR-45323(CA)
XPRESS PARTNERS LTD v. BGL SECURITIES LTD CITATION: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON THURSDAY, 5TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/460M/2012 BIOBELE ABRAHAM
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Judgment reserved on : 20th December, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 20th December, 2011 Judgment delivered on : 22ndDecember, 2011 RFA (OS) 32/2011 ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Anor [2007] QCA 90 PARTIES: JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (plaintiff/appellant) v FREDERICK WALTON LIPPIATT (first defendant/first respondent)
More information(2018) LPELR-44164(CA)
OJO v. FADEYI & ANOR CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Akure Judicial Division Holden at Akure ON THURSDAY, 19TH APRIL, 2018 Suit No: CA/AK/97/2012 Before Their Lordships: UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE Judgment reserved on : December 10, 2008 Judgment delivered on : December 12, 2008 RFA No. 159/2003 IQBAL AHMED... Through:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN CITATION: Krishnamoorthy v. Olympus Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 873 DATE: 20171116 DOCKET: C62948 Strathy C.J.O., Cronk and Pepall JJ.A. Nadesan Krishnamoorthy Plaintiff
More informationLim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another
914 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [1997] 1 SLR(R) Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another [1997] SGHC 122 High Court Suit No 2235 of 1992 Kan Ting Chiu J 11, 12 February; 12 May
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Determination Promulgated On 14 April 2015 On 17 April 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB Between
More informationIN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL. The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (1 st Defendant)
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles APPELLANT (1 st Defendant) VS M/S Kantilal of Mumbai, India herein represented By
More informationPERSINGER & COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. v. Record No November 1, 1996
Present: All the Justices PERSINGER & COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. v. Record No. 952160 November 1, 1996 MICHAEL D. LARROWE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY Duncan M. Byrd,
More informationBERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius
BERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R 2017 SCJ 120 Record No. 6823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius Appellant v L.R. Benydin
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. (From the decision of the RM's Court at Kisutu before Msongo, RM) JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM EMMANUEL P. KYAUKA RESPONDENT (From the decision of the RM's Court at Kisutu before Msongo, RM) Date of last order - 12/9/2007 Date of Judgment - 18/10/2007
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2014-03058 BETWEEN RAVI NAGINA SUMATI BAKAY Claimants AND LARRY HAVEN SUSAN RAMLAL HAVEN Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin
More informationRajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an
Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant
More informationMeloche Monnex Insurance Company, Defendant. R. D. Rollo, Counsel, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance, 2012 ONSC 154 COURT FILE NO.: 06-23974 DATE: 2012-01-09 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Nicola Zefferino, Plaintiff AND: Meloche Monnex Insurance
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROX-ANN REIFER, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 321 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
More informationMarley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd
Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL
More information(2018) LPELR-43691(CA)
ALADI v. OGBU CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Owerri Judicial Division Holden at Owerri ON MONDAY, 15TH JANUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/OW/344/2014 Before Their Lordships: MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D CLAIM NO. 294 of 2011 AND. Hearings nd May 6 th July 10 th August
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 294 of 2011 SUZETTE PEYREFITTE CLAIMANT AND IAN SKEEN DEFENDANT Hearings 2012 22 nd May 6 th July 10 th August Mrs. Robertha Magnus-Usher for the claimant.
More informationADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK QUORUM : Justice Mohammed Bello, President Professor Maurice Glèlè Ahanhanzo, Vice President Justice Lombe Chibesakunda, Member Professor Christian
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Trigen v. IBEW & Ano. 2002 PESCAD 16 Date: 20020906 Docket: S1-AD-0930 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: TRIGEN
More informationJUDGMENT. From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. before. Lady Hale Lord Clarke Lord Wilson Lord Hodge Sir Paul Girvan
[2015] UKPC 36 Privy Council Appeal No 0087 of 2013 JUDGMENT ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited (formerly Caribbean ISPAT Limited) (Appellant) v Steel Workers Union of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) (Trinidad
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL)
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO. SLUHCV 007 OF 1994 BETWEEN: BARBARA KIDDELL vs Claimant WINDJAMMER LANDING COMPANY LIMITED Defendant CONSOLIDATED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY DISPUTE. Date of Order : RFA 577/2007. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY DISPUTE Date of Order : 03.11.2008 RFA 577/2007 ANIL KAUSHIK... Through: Appellant Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate versus SWARAN KALA KAUSHIK
More informationMETALLON GOLD ZIMBABWE v GOLDEN MILLION (PRIVATE) LIMITED
1 DISTRIBUTABLE (22) METALLON GOLD ZIMBABWE v GOLDEN MILLION (PRIVATE) LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA & PATEL JA HARARE, FEBRUARY 13, 2014 & MARCH 31, 2015 T Tandi, for the appellant
More informationLonge v. First Bank of Nigeria PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 S.C.: An Ethical Twist
Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 S.C.: An Ethical Twist Misthura Otubu * 1.0 INTRODUCTION Indeed, there exists an elementary principle under the Nigerian Company Law to the
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and
IAC-AH-SAR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th October 2015 On 6 th November 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AHALYA A. SAMTANEY.APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 8292_ of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.25448/2017] Non-Reportable AHALYA A. SAMTANEY.APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) SECOND RESPONDENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 771/2010 In the matter between: DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN APPELLANT and ELECTRONIC MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED FIRST
More informationIn The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010
In The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010 Civil Appeal No. 2 In the Matter of an Appeal pursuant to section 43 (1) of the Income and Business Tax Act, CAP 55 of the Laws of Belize 2000 In the Matter of
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between : - and - THE ROYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 319 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: CH/2015/0377 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A1NLL Before : MR JUSTICE
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JS171/2014 In the matter between: LYALL, MATHIESON MICHAEL Applicant And THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter or an Appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal Brown and Company Limited, No. 481, T. B. Jaya Mawatha, Colombo
More information(2018) LPELR-44680(CA)
MAFILA v. BAKINDE & ANOR CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Ilorin Judicial Division Holden at Ilorin ON WEDNESDAY, 30TH MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/IL/M.108/2015 MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE HAMMA AKAWU BARKA
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/36145/2014 IA/36155/2014 IA/36157/2014 IA/36156/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/36145/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2015 On 23 December 2015 Before THE
More informationSAINT VINCENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 of 1986 BETWEEN:
SAINT VINCENT,, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 of 1986 BETWEEN: Before: Appearances: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL WILLIAM LITTLE and STEVE KING BRIDGETTE HORMANN The Honourable Mr. Justice Robotham The Honourable Mr. Justice
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 25 November 2015 On 3 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43643/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 25 November 2015 On 3 February 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1997 Between: IRVIN McQUEEN Appellant and THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. C.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice [Ag.] The Hon.
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2004 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM MUNUO, J.A MSOFFE, J.A AND KILEO J.A Nurdin Musa Wailu Vs, The Republic (Appeal from the Conviction of the High Court of Tanzania
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision: FAO(OS) 455/2012 and CM No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision: 04.03.2013 FAO(OS) 455/2012 and CM No.16502/2012 (Stay) GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED... Appellant Through:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.24702/2015) FIRDAUS Petitioner(s) VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3925 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29160 of 2018) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority & Anr.
More information* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 221/2014 & CM APPL.13917/2014. Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 221/2014 & CM APPL.13917/2014 Decided on: 12 th January, 2016 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for the DDA.
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 48 (Ch) Case No: CH-2017-000105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE A.D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2008 BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD. LOIS M. YOUNG doing business as LOIS YOUNG BARROW & CO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE A.D. 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2008 BETWEEN: BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD. APPELLANT AND LOIS M. YOUNG doing business as LOIS YOUNG BARROW & CO. RESPONDENT Before: The Hon. Mr.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Jun 30 2016 11:18:49 2015-CA-01772 Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BROOKS V. MONAGHAN VERSUS ROBERT AUTRY APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-01772 APPELLEE APPEAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationMlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule
Montana Law Review Online Volume 78 Article 10 7-20-2017 Mlekush v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: Defining the Standard for the Insurance Exception to the American Rule Molly Ricketts Alexander Blewett III
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT INFERIOR APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2004 BETWEEN: (ANTHONY WHITE ( ( ( AND ( ( (EDITH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 16, 2008 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : NOVEMBER 26, 2008 RFA 344/2001 RAM PARSHAD... Through: Appellant Mr.Ujjal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)
More informationARBITRATION ACT B.E.2545 (2002) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 23rd Day of April B.E. 2545; Being the 57th Year of the Present Reign.
ARBITRATION ACT B.E.2545 (2002) ------- BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 23rd Day of April B.E. 2545; Being the 57th Year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN : : v. : C.A. No. T : PHILIP DEY : DECISION
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS CRANSTON, RITT RHODE ISLAND TRAFFIC TRIBUNAL TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN : : v. : C.A. No. T13-0008 : 12502502256 PHILIP DEY : DECISION PER CURIAM: Before this
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationARBITRATION ACT, B.E (2002) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 23rd Day of April B.E. 2545; Being the 57th Year of the Present Reign.
ARBITRATION ACT, B.E. 2545 (2002) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 23rd Day of April B.E. 2545; Being the 57th Year of the Present Reign. Translation His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015 Prepared on 17 th March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT
IAC-FH-AR/V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/52919/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015
More informationLAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Chin Hong Investments Corporation Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer- General [2018] QLC 46 Chin Hong Investments Corporation Pty Ltd as Tte (appellant) v Valuer-General
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 23669/2004 DATE: 12/9/2008 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CATHERINA ELIZABETH OOSTHUIZEN FRANS LANGFORD 1 ST PLAINTIFF
More informationHouweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling Page 2 Paul Houweling appearing in person for the Appellants D.B. Wende Place and Date: Counsel for the Responde
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Houweling, 2004 BCCA 172 Between: Date: 20040316 Docket: CA029616 Houweling Nurseries Ltd., NHL Bradner Nurseries Ltd., and Houweling
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. ) ) ) Respondents )
CITATION: Papp v. Stokes 2018 ONSC 1598 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-0000047-00 DATE: 20180309 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. BETWEEN: Adam Papp
More informationArbitration CAS 2007/A/1367 FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, award of 14 May Panel: Mr Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, Panel: Mr Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator Football Disciplinary sanction against
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 2012 BLUE SKY BELIZE LIMITED BELIZE AQUACULTURE LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 2012 BLUE SKY BELIZE LIMITED Appellant v BELIZE AQUACULTURE LIMITED Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Dennis Morrison The Hon Mr Justice
More informationDATED: 9th January, 2009
(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1398 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income ) Tax-3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. ) Road, Mumbai-400 020.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2312 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAJKOT Appellant (s) VERSUS ESTATE OF LATE HMM VIKRAMSINHJI OF GONDAL WITH
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 of 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ( THE CONSTITUTION ) ENACTED AS A SCHEDULE TO
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice. Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario. - and - Bill Steenstra
Court File No. 231/08 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario Between: Hydro One Networks Inc. - and - Bill Steenstra Heard: April 21, June 4 and August 30, 2010 Judgment:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2009 ITA 1130/2006 09.01.2009 M/S HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD Appellant Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent
More information