AMCON (Appellant) vs. Suru Worldwide Ventures Nigeria Limited & 3 Ors. (Respondents)

Facts

The 1st Respondent was a customer of Oceanic Bank International Plc. (now Ecobank Limited). With the existing banker-customer relations, the 1st Respondent was granted several credit facilities by the bank, which the 1st Respondent did not repay at the due date or any time at all. Subsequently, the credit facilities were purchased by the Appellant in accordance with its statutory duties. The instrument evincing the loan purchase was the Loan Purchase and Limited ervicing Agreement entered into between the Appellant and the bank. Further to the loan purchase, the Appellant took out an Originating Motion at the Federal High Court, Lagos where the Appellant sued 2nd – 4th Respondent, as well as the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State (this party was later struck out by the trial judge on application by the Appellant) seeking mainly, executory orders of court directing the Defendants or officers under their command/control to (i) assist the Appellant in the exercise of its rights as legal mortgagee under the Deeds of Legal Mortgage registered as 32/32/2023, 88/88/2032; (ii) maintain peace and for the protection of the Appellant’s exclusive possessory rights over properties situate at 12, Reverend Ogunbiyi Steet, Ikeja, Lagos and 12, Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos (the “securities for the loan”).

The Appellant was successful at the trial court. However, when the 1st Respondent became aware of the decision of the trial court, the 1st Respondent (whose mortgaged properties/securities for the loan was in issue) appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos, on the basis that it is a necessary party and should have been made a party to the suit. The lower court delivered its judgement on 2nd July 2019, holding inter alia that the trial court should not have conducted proceedings without the 1st Respondent as a party. The court reasoned that the 1st Respondent could have assisted the court in determining some issues, including whether the Appellant’s right of foreclosure/possession had arisen. The lower court therefore remitted the case to the trial court for hearing de novo with the 1st Respondent as a party.