Judgment
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on the 2nd day of July 2021 in Suit No.: FHC/L/CS/1643/2020 – BETWEEN: MILAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS (1) POLARIS BANK LIMITED (2) ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (3) 11 PLC wherein the trial Court dismissed the Respondents/Cross Appellants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection (which challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit) and also the Appellant/Cross Respondent’s substantive suit.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that by an Originating Summons dated 11th day of November 2020 and filed on 20th day of November 2020, the Plaintiff/Appellant presented the following questions for the Court’s determination:- “(1) Whether having paid N2 Billion secured under the Deed of Legal Mortgage of 10th September 2010 the 1st Defendant can dispose of the mortgaged property and security of the plaintiff as a collateralized or secured non-performing loan or as an eligible bank asset. (2) If Issue 1 is answered in the negative, whether the 2nd Defendant can lawfully sell the mortgage property to the 3rd Defendant as an eligible bank asset acquired from the 1st Defendant. (3) Whether the 1st Defendant can recover an amount in excess of the N2 Billion secured and upstamped at the Corporate Affairs Commission”.
In anticipation of the questions above being answered in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant, it sought the following reliefs:- “(a) A Declaration that the 1st Defendant cannot dispose of the secured debt and security of the plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant as an eligible bank asset. (b) A Declaration that the security of the plaintiff under the Deed of Legal Mortgage is void in relation to any amount in excess of the N2 Billion secured and upstamped. (c) An Order setting aside the sale of the Plaintiff’s mortgage property as an eligible bank asset to the 2nd Defendant. (d) An Order setting aside the sale of the mortgaged property (Intercontinental Hotel) by the 2nd Defendant as an eligible bank asset to the 3rd Defendant. (e) And for such further or other Orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”. At the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was delivered in which the Respondents/Cross Appellants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection which challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit was dismissed.
