Supreme Court Grants Lawyer  Leave To Appeal Against Court Judgment On Foreign Judgment Act

The Supreme Court has granted leave to Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. to appeal against the Court of Appeal, Abuja’s judgement of May 12, 2022, dismissing his appeal against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) on the inoperative Foreign Judgement (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, CAP F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

The appellant’s prayers one through four were granted unanimously by a five-member Supreme Court panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro.

It should be noted that in the case number SC/CV/92/2024, Ekpenyong is the appellant and the AGF is the sole respondent.

According to Justice Jauro, the court was satisfied that the AGF had received a hearing notice on May 24, 2024.

“The application, which was filed on February 15, 2024, is for Trinity prayers.

“There is no objection, and it is hereby granted in accordance with prayers 1 through 4.

“Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgement delivered on May 12, 2022, in appeal No. CA/A/132/2020 in Emmanuel Ekpeyong Esq Vs Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

“The right to appeal is also granted. The time to appeal the decision has been extended to today, May 27, 2024. Leave to appeal against the concurrent findings is also granted.”

“The applicant must file the notice of appeal within 60 days of today,” the judge stated in the certified true copy of the ruling made available to journalists on Wednesday.

Ekpenyong has taken the AGF to the Supreme Court over the alleged failure to issue an Order bringing Part 1 of the Foreign Judgement (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1990 into effect since its enactment in 1960, which was supposed to begin on February 1, 1961.

The lawyer filed his notice of appeal, SC/CR/92/2024, on July 2.

Ekpenyong of the law firm Fred-Young & Evans LP filed two grounds for appeal and sought four reliefs, including an order setting aside the Court of Appeal’s entire judgement.

He also requested “an order compelling the respondent to promulgate an Order further to Section 3 (1) of the Foreign Judgement (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, CAP F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, extending its applicability to commonwealth countries and other countries that the respondent may elect to bring Part I of the Act into operation.”

“An order granting all of the reliefs requested by the appellant in his originating summons dated June 21, 2017.”

He also requested an order allowing his appeal. In his first ground of appeal, Ekpenyong argued that “the Learned Justices of the appellate court erred in law when they held that the administrative discretion granted to the AGF under Section 3 (1) of the Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, CAP F35, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) to promulgate an Order to bring Part I of the 1990 Act into operation is absolute and not subject to judicial review.”

In the second ground of appeal, Ekpenyong contended that “the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves when they applied the literals rule of interpretation to interpret the word’may’ as used in Section 3 (1) of the Act as discretionary rather than apply the purposive rule of interpretation to interpret the word’may’ in the provision as mandatory so as to arrive at the true intention of the legislature as at the time it enacted the Act in 1960.”

On May 12, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division dismissed Ekpenyong’s appeal, CA/A/132/2020, against the AGF.

It then upheld the decision of retired Justice Anwuli Chikere of the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja, which held that the AGF had absolute discretionary powers under Section 3 (1) of the Act to issue an order bringing Part 1 of the Act into effect.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/755/2017, dated and filed on June 21, 2017, the constitutional and human rights lawyer sued the AGF as the sole defendant before retired Justice Chikere of an FHC in Abuja.

In the originating summons, the lawyer urged the court to determine whether the AGF has a mandatory legal duty under Section 3-1 and 9 of the Foreign Judgement Reciprocal Act, CAP F35, Law of the Federation, 1990 (the 1990 Act) to promulgate an order to bring Part 1 of the 1990 Act into operation.

Ekpenyong sought a mandamus order compelling the AGF to “exercise the mandatory legal duty stipulated” in the section of the law.

The plaintiff claimed that he was a member of international law networks such as IR Global, Global Law Experts, Legal Finest, and International Credit Network, and that evidence demonstrated that he was sufficiently interested in the subject matter, contrary to the AGF’s argument.

He claimed that the AGF’s failure to promulgate the order caused him some damage and hardship.

Furthermore, he claimed that his business for foreign judgement registration in Nigeria had suffered as a result of the AGF’s failure to issue the Order bringing Part 1 of the 1990 Act into effect.

Ekpenyong stated that the Order would encourage foreign businesses to do more business with Nigerians and Nigerian companies by allowing them to recover monetary judgements in Nigeria.

“This will enhance international trade and foreign investment. “This will also benefit the Nigerian economy and the plaintiff’s and Nigerians’ right to a decent living,” he claimed.