 |
 |
 |
The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
CITEC INTERNATION ESTATES LTD VS. EDICOMISA INTERNATIONAL INC. & ASS. (SC. 163 2006)[2017] NGSC 13 (9 June 2017) (SC. 163 2006) [1960] NGSC 1 (08 June 2017); 
CL Index Incorporation Company Law Foreign-Owned Company Parties Civil ProcedureSuburban Broadband Ltd Nigeria v Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd (CA/A/135/2013)[2016] NGCA 95 (21 March 2016) (CA/A/135/2013) [2016] NGCA 95 (20 March 2016); CL Index Winding Up of A Company Liquidation, insolvency and winding up Company Law Incorporation Company Law Separate Legal Personality Legal personality Company Law Jurisdiction International law Human RightsThe issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a petition for winding up and whether the respondent had required authorization to petition for winding up.
The appeal emanated from the dismissal of the appellant’s objection to a petition for winding up the appellant company. The appellant argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter. It pointed out that only the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on any dispute between the parties. Moreover, the appellant challenged the legal personality of the respondent arguing that they did not provide original certificates of incorporation and that the respondent did not receive authority of shareholders to petition for the winding up.
The respondent opposed the appeal on the grounds that the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction only on disputes and not on a petition for winding up. It further argued that it required a trail to verify the authenticity of the certificate of incorporation. Lastly the respondent pointed out that since they were duly incorporated, they were authorized to work on behalf of the shareholders.
The court in dismissed the first two points raised by appellant. The court held that the English court’s exclusive jurisdiction did not extend to petitions and that documents attached to an affidavit in an interlocutory application should not be used as an objection to the issue of admissibility. However the court ruled that the respondent required the approval of directors and shareholders to file a petition to wind up. Thus the appeal was upheld.