BRUCE JOSEPH GOODCHILD (CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS H. C. BEETON AND CO.) (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)
v.
IKWAN ONWUKA (DEFENDANT/APPLICANT) (1961) All N.L.R. 172
Division: High Court (East)
Date of Judgment: 7th February, 1961
Case Number: Suit No. FJ/1/1960
Before: Savage, J.
Applicant is a Judgment debtor under a Judgment obtained in the courts of the United Kingdom. Within twelve months of obtaining the Judgment, the respondent caused it to be registered in the High Court of Lagos, under section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, Cap. 175, Laws of the Federation and Lagos, 1958. Subsequently, but over twelve months after it was obtained in the United Kingdom, the respondent caused the Judgment to be registered in the Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court, as if it were, originally, a Judgment of the High Court of Lagos. By leave of Court, respondent had execution issue forth the Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court and levied upon immovable property of the applicant in Port Harcourt.
Applicant filed two motions; one to set aside the registration of the Judgment in the Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court; and the second to set aside the levy upon the immovable property, or, in the alternative, to permit payment of the Judgment by stated instalments.
HELD:
(1) The registration of the Judgment in the High Court of Lagos was properly done under the provisions of section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, Cap. 175, Laws of the Federation and Lagos, 1958.
(2) Once a Judgment has been so registered in any High Court in Nigeria, it can be enforced in any part of the Federation. It is not necessary to make a fresh application under section 3 of the Ordinance to register it in another High Court. The Judgment of the United Kingdom Court once registered in Lagos High Court is no longer to be treated as a Judgment of the United Kingdom Court; but as a Judgment of the High Court of Lagos; and registration of this Judgment in the Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court was not made under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, but under sections 104 and 105 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Ordinance, Cap. 189, Laws of the Federation and Lagos, 1958.
(3) Upon registration of a Judgment under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, the registering High Court only acquires such jurisdiction over the Judgment as is provided by section 3(3)(b) of the Ordinance; which limits it to execution only. The Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court could not in this case exercise greater jurisdiction over the Judgment registered from Lagos High Court than could the Lagos High Court itself, and since that Court was confined to execution of the Judgment, the Port Harcourt Division of the Eastern Region High Court could not order or permit payment by instalments, and an application for such an Order is not tenable in the circumstances.
Applications refused.
Ordinances referred to:-
Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance, Cap. 175, Laws of the Federation and Lagos, 1958.
Sheriffs and Civil Process Ordinance, Cap. 189, Laws of the Federation and Lagos, 1958.
Nonyelu (Okechukwu with him) for Applicant
Bentley for Respondent
Savage, J.:-The applicant is a Judgment debtor against whom the respondent obtained Judgment in the United Kingdom. The Judgment obtained against the applicant in the United Kingdom was subsequently registered in the High Court, Lagos as suit M/115/55 under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance Cap. 175 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958. This Judgment was subsequently re-registered in Port Harcourt for the purpose of levying execution on the immovable property of the applicant in Port Harcourt. After the registration of the Judgment in Port Harcourt the respondent obtained the leave of the High Court, Port Harcourt to levy execution on the immovable property of the applicant at 26 Potts Johnson Street, Port Harcourt. When this property at 26 Potts Johnson Street, Port Harcourt was attached the applicant filed two motions the subject matter of this decision. One of the motions is an application to set aside the registration of the Judgment in the High Court, Port Harcourt. The other motion is an application for an order setting aside the execution levied on the applicant's property at 26 Potts Johnson Street, Port Harcourt, or in the alternative for an order that the Judgment debt and costs be met by monthly instalment payments of £30 and for a stay of execution. It would appear from these two applications that the applicant is not quarrelling with the registration of the Judgment in Lagos.
The Affidavit in support of the first motion asking that the registration of the Judgment in the High Court, Port Harcourt, be set aside does not disclose the reason or reasons for the application.
However during the hearing of the motion the learned Counsel for the applicant argued that section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance was not complied with in that the application for the registration of the Judgment obtained in the United Kingdom was made in the High Court, Port Harcourt, after a period of twelve months after the date of the Judgment had elapsed. It appears that the learned Counsel was under the notion that the registration of the Judgment in Port Harcourt was under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance.
There is no doubt that the registration of the Judgment in the High Court of Lagos was made under section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance. Section 3 of the Ordinance reads as follows:-
Where a Judgment has been obtained in the High Court in England or Ireland, or in the High Court of Session in Scotland, the Judgment creditor may apply to a High Court at any time within 12 months after the date of the Judgment, or such longer period as may be allowed by the court, to have the Judgment registered in the court, and on any such application the court may, if in all the circumstances of the case it thinks it is just and convenient that the Judgment should be enforced in Nigeria, and subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, order the Judgment to be registered accordingly.
It is clear from this section that the application can be made to any High Court in Nigeria, and once it has been registered in a High Court in Nigeria the Judgment can be enforced in any part of Nigeria. It is not necessary to make a fresh application under section 3 of the Ordinance to register the Judgment in another High Court in Nigeria once it has been registered in one of the High Courts in Nigeria. As the original Judgment in the United Kingdom has been registered in the High Court of Lagos, it should be treated as a Judgment of the High Court of Lagos. The application to register it in the High Court, Port Harcourt should therefore be treated as an application to register the Judgment as if it is a Judgment of the High Court of Lagos and not of the High Court in the United Kingdom. The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance therefore does not apply to the registration of the Judgment in the High Court, Port Harcourt. The registration of the Judgment in the High Court Port Harcourt should therefore be under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Ordinance Cap. 189 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos (the particular sections being sections 104 and 105). The application for setting aside the registration of the Judgment in the High Court, Port Harcourt must therefore fail.
Now as regards the motion for payment by instalments. To decide whether I can entertain this application I have first of all to find out what is the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court over the Judgments of the United Kingdom Court. Section 3(3)(b) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance under which the Judgment of the United Kingdom Court was registered is clear on the point. It reads as follows:-
The registering court shall have the same control and jurisdiction over the Judgment as it has over similar Judgments given by itself but insofar only as relates to execution under this Ordinance.
The jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court over the Judgment relates only to execution under the Ordinance. The High Court, Port Harcourt where the Judgment was subsequently registered can therefore only exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Lagos High Court under section 3(3)(b) of the Ordinance and no more. As the Lagos High Court jurisdiction only relates to execution under the Ordinance, the jurisdiction of the High Court, Port Harcourt over the Judgment must also relate only to execution. In the circumstances the application for payment by instalments is not tenable in this Court. I have to add however that even if I have jurisdiction to entertain the application for payment by instalments I would not have exercised my discretion in favour of the applicant as I do not consider the reasons given in support of the application cogent enough for me to grant the prayer.
For these reasons I dismiss both applications with £15-15s costs to the respondent.
Applications dismissed.