Before Their Lordships
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
TRANSNAV PURPOSE NAVIGATION LIMITED Appellant
And
1.VELCAN ENERGY HOLDINGS DUBAI LTD
2.VELCAN SA
3.M/V SAM PURPOSE Respondents
…………………….A…………………….
ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the lower court allowing the appeal of the 1st and 2nd respondents, who were interveners in the suit before the trial court and directed that the matter be remitted back to the trial court for accelerated hearing of the 1st and 2nd respondents pending the application which was not determined as a result of his earlier order staying proceedings in the suit pending the conclusion of London arbitration.
The appellant sued the 3rd respondent for monetary reliefs in respect of a Chartered Credit Agreement (CCA) dated 30/6/2016 and in order to secure its claim, obtained an interlocutory order of arrest on 19/1/2017 vide an ex parte application dated 12/1/2017. The trial court however refused the 1st and 2nd respondents’ application of 19/9/2017 but stayed further proceedings in the suit. The trial court did not consider the rights and interests of the respondents in their application of 19/9/2017, which caused them to appeal to the lower court. The lower court found that the trial court breached the respondents’ rights to fair hearing and remitted the matter back to another Judge for expedited hearing. The appellant not comfortable with this has appealed to this court. The issues for determination are:
Issues:
1.Whether the lower court was right to have held that the decision of the trial court to defer the determination of the 1st and 2nd respondents’ application in deference to its earlier order staying further proceedings pending the conclusion of arbitration was unwarranted,unreasonable and constituted a breach of their right to fair hearing.
2.Whether the order of the lower court directing that the case be remitted back to another judge of the trial court for an expedited hearing of the 1st and 2nd respondents’application ought to be allowed to stand having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
