ONWUNALU & ORS V. OSADEME

• Pages: 13-15

13

ONWUNALU & ORS V. OSADEME

gation itself under that agreement was for Aluminium Company of Nigeria Limited

in Zurich

to repay the principal and interest on the loan to the appellant company

in Swiss currency. Hence neither the source of

τη

enligation nor the obligation

itself arose in Nigeria, but in Swizterland: see Na

l

Bank

of Greece S.A. v.

5

Westminster

Bank

Executor & Trustee

Co.

(Channel island) Ltd.

in the Times Law

Report, House of Lords, of 11th November, 1970. That being so, on that ground

we must decide that the claim for tax could not be brought within the first deem

-

ing provision of section 17 of the Companies Income Tax Act, 1961 which only

deems interest to be derived from Nigeria and so liable to tax if there is a right to

As the case presented by the Federal Board of Inland Revenue rested solely

10

payment of that interest in Nigeria.

on that deeming provision it should in our view have been rejected and we must

accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of Sowemimo, J. of No-

vember 21st, 1969 in Lagos Suit No. LD/7A/69, together with his order of 30 gui-

15

neas costs to the Federal Board of Inland Revenue, and we do order that the

decision of the majority of the Appeal Commissioners be restored discharging the

assessments for 1962-1963, 1963-1964 and 1964-1965 as shown in Assessment

Notices LCBA 142,

ΛΧ

143 and LCBA 90 in the sums chargeable income £4,750

(tax payable £1,900), chargeable income £7,500 (tax payable £3,000) and char-

20

geable income £16,070 (tax payable £6,428) respectively. The appellant company

is entitled to costs in the High Court which we assess at 20 guineas and to costs

of the appeal in this court.

Appeal allowed.

25

ONWUNALU & ORS V. OSADEME

30

1.

OKORO IGABOR ONWUNALU

2.

OZEGBE NDIDI

3.

OLIWA ONWUNALU



APPELLANTS

(For themselves and on behalf

35

of the people of 01

V

RESPONDENT

OBODOKEA OSADEME

(For himself and on behalf of Umuolu)

SUIT NO. SC 24/67

40

SUPREME COURT OFNIGERIA

COKER,

J.S.C.

LEWIS,

J.S.C.

UDO-UDOMA,

J.S.C.

15th January, 1971.

45

Χιϖιλ Προχεδυρε − Χιϖιλ αχτιονσ − Χαπαχιτψ ιν ωηιχη δεφενδαντσ ωερε συεδ −

Αµενδµεντ οφ, βψ Χουρτ συο µοτε∋

− Νο αδδρεσσ φροµ παρτιεσ − εφφεχτ −

Συινγ ωρονγ παρτψ − Προπερ ορδερ − Ωηετηερ νον−συιτ ορ στρικινγ ουτ.

constituted.

50

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a Judge can, suo

mote,

amend the title of a case wrongly

2.

Whether representative in an action, can be enforced on a community without

allowing them to nominate people of their own choice.

3.

Whether judgment can be given against people who are not parties to an action.

14

NIGERIAN

ΣΥΠΡΕΜΕ ΧΟΥΡΤ ΧΑΣΕΣ [1971] Ν.Σ.Χ.Χ.

ΦΑΧΤΣ:

Πλαιντιφφσ, ιν α ρεπρεσεντατιϖε χαπαχιτψ συεδ τηε δεφενδαντ ιν α ρεπρεσεντατιϖε

χαπαχιτψ φορ δεχλαρατιον οφ τιτλε το προπερτψ. Τηε

τριαλ

ϑυδγε φελτ τηατ τηε πλαιντιφφ

σηουλδ βε νον−συιτεδ ασ τηεψ συεδ τηε δεφενδαντ. Τηε ϑυδγε ηοωεϖερ αµενδεδ

τηε χλαιµ στατινγ τηατ τηε πλαιντιφφ ωασ ρεπρεσεντινγ τηε χοµµυνιτψ. Ον αππεαλ

5

αγαινστ τηισ αµενδµεντ

−

ΗΕΛ∆:

1.

Τηε αµενδµεντ ωηιχη ωασ µαδε

συο µοτυ

σηουλδ νοτ ηαϖε βεεν µαδε φορ ατ

τηατ σταγε ατ ωηιχη τηε τριαλ ϑυδγε δεχιδεδ το αµενδ τηε τιτλε οφ τηε χασε ηε

ουγητ το ηαϖε φουνδ τηατ τηε Πλαιντιφφ∋σ αχτιον ωασ ωρονγλψ χονστιτυτεδ.

10

2.

Τηε χουρσε αδοπτεδ

βψ

τηε τριαλ ϑυδγε µυστ περφορχε οπερατε ηαρσηλψ ον τηε

Ονωυναλυ φαµιλψ ασ τηατ φαµιλψ ηαδ νο οππορτυνιτψ οφ χοντεστινγ τηε χασε ωηιχη

ρεσυλτεδ ιν τηε µακινγ οφ αν ορδερ οφ περπετυαλ ινϕυνχτιον αγαινστ τηεµ νορ

ινδεεδ ωερε τηεψ γιϖεν τηε χηχε οφ νοµινατινγ

λικε

τηε Οκποκιρικα πεοπλε

τηειρ

οων

ρ

επρεσεντατιϖεσ το τηε αχτιον

15

3.

Ιν τηισ χασε ιτ ωασ χλεαρ τηατ τηε Ονωυναλυ φαµιλψ ωασ νεϖερ α παρτψ το τηε πρεσεντ

προχεεδινγσ ανδ εο

ιπσο ιτ

ωουλδ βε ωρονγ το γιϖε ϕυδγµεντ αγαινστ τηεµ ιν

τηοσε προχεεδινγσ.

4.

Α νον−συιτ ιµπλιεσ γιϖινγ το αν υνσυχχεσσφυλ πλαιντιφφ ανοτηερ οππορτυνιτψ οφ

προχεεδινγ αγαιν ιν τηε σαµε χαυσε αγαινστ α δεφενδαντ ωηο ιν ανψ χασε ωασ

20

νοτ εντιτλεδ το τηε ϕυδγµεντ οφ τηε Χουρτ. Συχη ωασ νοτ τηε χασε ηερε φορ τηε

δεφενδαντ ον τηε ωριτ, ι.ε.

τηε

πεοπλε οφ Οκποκιρικα, σηουλδ νοτ ηαϖε βεεν µαδε

δεφενδαντσ ατ αλλ το τηισ αχτιον. Χονσεθυεντλψ τηε προπερ ορδερ ωασ το στρικε

ουτ τηε χασε οφ τηε πλαιντιφφ.

Χηιεφ Ακποφυρε,

φορ τηε Αππελλαντσ.

Μρ. ϑοαθυιµ, (ωιτη

ηιµ

Μρ. Οϕι),

φορ τηε Ρεσπονδεντσ.

25

ΧΟΚΕΡ, ϑ.Σ.Χ.

(∆ελιϖερινγ τηε ϑυδγµεντ οφ τηε Χουρτ): Τηε µαττερ φο

δετερµινατιον ιν τηισ αππεαλ λιεσ ωιτηιν α σµαλλ αµβιτ. Τηε ρεσπονδεντ, Οβοδοκεα

ρ

30

Οσαδεµε ηαδ συεδ ονε Οκοροιγαβορ Ονωυναλυ φορ α δεχλαρατιον οφ τιτλε το ∀λανδ

κνοων ασ Απατα ωιτη ιτσ λακε Ογε ανδ τηε πονδσ τηερειν∋ ανδ αν ινϕυνχτιον το ρεστραιν

τηε δεφενδαντ ανδ ηισ αγεντσ φροµ εντερινγ τηε λανδ, τηε λακε ανδ τηε πονδσ. Ον

ηισ ωριτ τηε πλαιντιφφ εξπρεσσεδ ηιµσελφ ασ συινγ ον βεηαλφ οφ ηιµσελφ ανδ τηε πεοπλε

οφ Υµυολυ ανδ τηε δεφενδαντ ωασ εξπρεσσεδ το ηαϖε βεεν συεδ ον βεηαλφ οφ

3!5

ηιµσελφ ανδ τηε πεοπλε οφ Οκποκιρικα. Πλεαδινγσ ωερε ορδερεδ ανδ φιλεδ βψ βοτη

παρτιεσ ανδ τηε χαπαχιτιεσ ιν ωηιχη τηε παρτιεσ αππεαρεδ ον τηε ωριτ ωερε χονφιρµεδ

ιν τηειρ πλεαδινγσ. Ιτ αππεαρσ τηατ σοµε τιµε αφτερ τηε χλοσε οφ πλεαδινγσ τωο

περσονσ αππλιεδ το βε ϕοινεδ αλονγ ωιτη τηε δεφενδαντ ασ ρεπρεσεντατιϖεσ οφ τηε

πεοπλε οφ Οκποκιρικα. Τηε χουρτ γραντεδ

τηερεαφτερ τηε πεοπλε οφ





τηειρ αππλιχατιον ανδ

ιτ

σεεµεδ τηατ



4

Οκποκιρικα ωερε ρεπρεσεντεδ ασ συχη βψ τηρεε περσονσ,

ναµελψ, Οκοροιγαβορ Ονωυναλυ, Οζεγβε Νδιδι ανδ Ολιωα Ονωυναλυ.

Τηε ηεαρινγ οφ τηε χασε τηεν τοοκ πλαχε βοτη σιδεσ χαλλινγ εϖιδενχε βεφορε τηε

χουρτ (Βεγηο, ϑ. ασ ηε τηεν ωασ). Τηε λεαρνεδ τριαλ ϑυδγε τηερεαφτερ γαϖε ϕυδγ−

µεντ

ιν

φαϖουρ οφ τηε πλαιντι

ff

ιν τηε τερµσ οφ ηισ ωριτ ανδ τηισ αππεαλ ισ φροµ τηατ

4

ϕυδγµεντ. Ιν τηε χουρσε οφ ηισ ϕυδγµεντ τηε φολλοωινγ πασσαγε, ωηιχη χονστιτυτεσ

τηε χορε οφ τηε αργυµεντσ βεφορε υσ αππεαρσ,:−

Ονλψ Οζεγβε Νδιδι γαϖε εϖιδενχε ουτ οφ αλλ τηε δεφενδαντσ. Ηε

λανδ ιν δισπυτε βελονγεδ το ηιµ ανδ τηε Ονωυναλυ φαµιλψ ανδ νοτ

σαιδ τηε

χοµµυναλ

5

λανδ βελονγινγ το τηε ωηολε οφ Οκποκιρικα πεοπλε. Η ωασ δεφενδινγ τηε συιτ

ιν α ρεπρεσεντατιϖε χαπαχιτψ; φορ ηιµσελφ ανδ Ονωυναλυ

ε

φ

αµιλψ ορ τηειρ εξτενδεδ

φαµιλψ χαλλεδ Οϕυγβελι. Ιν τηισ ρεσπεχτ, βοτη σιδεσ ηαϖε δεϖιατεδ φροµ τηειρ

15

ONWUNALU & ORS V. OSADEME

pleadings; and I thought a non-suit should be entered but I would not be doing

substantial justice to this protracted case by doing that.

The capacity in which plaintiff sues is clear but the capacity in which the

present defendants (i.e. Okoroigabor Onwunalu, Ozegbe Ndidi and Oliwa

5

Onwunalu) are defending the suit should read "for themselves and on behalf of

Onwunalu family" since this is the capacity on which the case was contested by

both parties."

After this the learned trial Judge dealt extensively with the merits of the case of

10

both parties and gave judgment as stated before for the plaintiff in the terms of his

claim but against the Onwunalu family according to his own amendment and not

against the Okpokirika people according to the writ and the pleadings. On appeal

before us the main point argued is that the learned trial Judge should either have

non-suited the plaintiff or struck out his case once he came to the conclusion that

15

the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff was directed against the Onwunalu

family and not against the Okpokirika people as on the writ and the pleadings.

We are ourselves concerned over the propriety of making an order for amend-

ing the capacity in which defendants were sued without giving any opportunity to

the parties or their counsel to address the court on the proposed amendment. In

20

this case it is clear that the Onwunalu family was never a part to the present pro-

ceedings and eo ipso it would be wrong to give judgment against them in those

y

proceedings. Although the learne

e based his decision to amend the

d trial Judg

designation of the defendants as he did on the evidence before him, he overlooked

the contents of the affidavits in support of the application for their joinder. Those

25

affidavits state positively that the two defendants later joined were at a meeting of

the Okpokirika people nominated to represent them, i.e. the Okpokirika people,

and that they were asking to be joined as parties for that purpose. We are in no

doubt that the amendment which was made suo

motu

should not have been made

for at that stage at which the learned trial Judge decided to amend the title of the

30

case he ought to have found that the plaintiff's action was wrongly constituted. It

is sufficient to point out that the course adopted by him must perforce operate

o

pportunity of contesting the

case which resulted in the making of an order of perpetual injunction against them

nor indeed were they given the choice of nominating like the Okpokirika people

Learned counsel for the plaintiff

35

their own representatives to the actioon

n this appeal had urged us to make an order

striking out the case of the plaintiff instead of non-suiting him. We were not told

why he preferred the one form of order to the other but we are aware that a

no

i

mplies giving to an unsuccessful plaintiff another opportunity of proceeding

40

aain in the same cause against a defendant who in any case was not entitled to

g

the judgment of the court. Such is not th

h

e caseebeen made defendants

here for the defendants

the

at all to

on the writ,

i.

e. the people of Okpokirika, should not av

this

action. We think therefore that the proper order is to strike out the case of

plaintiff with costs thereby allowing the appeal.

45

The appeal therefore succeeds and it is allowed. The judgment of the High

Court, Benin City, in Suit No. W/95/57, including the order for costs to the plain-

tiffs, is set aside. We do not interfere with the order for costs against Egre Okoro

and James Obuku and that will stay. It is ordered that the plaintiff's case be struck

out and that this be the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff shall pay the costs of

50

the defendants in the court below which we fix at 45 guineas and he will also pay

the costs of the defendants in this Court w

we fix at 81 guineas.

Appeal allowed: Plaintiff's case

A

hich

struck out.