Supreme Court Weighs Appeal Incompetence Over Unilateral Party Removal

The Supreme Court of Nigeria is considering a complex legal question: the effect of unilaterally removing a party from an appeal without obtaining prior leave from the court. The case involves Binez Hotels Limited, the appellant, who is challenging decisions by lower courts that dismissed its claim for beneficial ownership of shares in Nigercem Plc.

The dispute originated when Binez Hotels agreed to purchase shares from the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), the first respondent, through Future View Securities Limited, the second respondent. After the BPE approved the sale and Binez Hotels issued a cheque, the BPE canceled the transaction midway and returned the un-cashed cheque. Binez Hotels later discovered the shares had been sold to the Ebonyi State Government.

Binez Hotels subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that it was entitled to the shares' beneficial ownership. Both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled against the appellant, dismissing its claims. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the first respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal is incompetent. The objection stems from the appellant's decision to remove the Nigerian Stock Exchange, which was a defendant at the trial court, from the appeal without first seeking and obtaining the court's leave. The respondent contends that this failure to maintain the original parties renders the appeal incompetent and deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.