Adalfa Agric Industries (Nigeria) Limited & Anor V. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.

The

 respondent granted a loan of N60,000.00 to the 1st appellant under the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund Act, Cap 13 of the Laws of the Federation 1990 as far back as 1980. The appellants failed to refund the money and the respondents sued them in the lower court, namely, the High Court of Imo State holding at Mgbidi claiming N144,037.43 plus interest. The lower court gave judgment in favour of the respondent.

Dissatisfied with that judgment the appellants have appealed to this court and the only issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants in their brief of argument reads thus:
‘(a) Is respondent’s suit No.HOU/45/95 incompetent and an abuse of court’s process or has the lower court the jurisdiction to entertain it?”

The learned counsel for the appellant abandoned the remaining issues and the arguments thereon and they were struck out in court. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that by virtue of Section 15 of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund Act as passed by Decree no. 20 of 1977 Section 15 thereof, all proceedings of civil nature arising from the failure of any borrower to pay a loan granted by a bank and guaranteed under this Decree or arising from any matter patterning to any guarantee given pursuant to this Decree established instituted and conducted by or against the Board.

Since the respondent did not sue the board but the appellants, learned counsel submitted that the action was incompetent and should have been struck out. The learned counsel relied very heavily on the case of TASHA v. UBN PLC (2002) 3 NWLR (pt.753) 99 at pages 105-108.

That case appears to be at all fours with the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent adopted his brief of argument and his attention was drawn to this case of the Supreme Court. We expected him to concede to the appeal but he was adamant. In the case of TASHA v. UBN PLC in which the respondent granted the appellant a loan under the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund Decree and the appellant defaulted in paying the loan and the respondent sued him and got judgment in the lower court and also in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that the proper party to be sued was the Board as provided for in the Decree before it was amended. I therefore follow this decision of the Supreme Court to hold that the action of the respondent before the lower court was incompetent. Consequently, I allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the trial court and strike out the respondent’s claim before the lower court with costs of N5,000.00 in favour of the appellants.

Other Citations: 2002)LCN/1136(CA)