Kano Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed the appeal filed by Nigeria Bottling Company, challenging the power of Kano Road Traffic Agency (KAROTA) to charge levy on commercial vehicle carrying goods to obtain way bill.
The presiding Judge, George Ugo in his judgement, upheld that the notice of appeal filed by the Appellant was incompetent, defective and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Read Also: Kano Court Jails Amina Gara, Others for Conspiracy to kidnap 2-Year-Old Boy
Justice George Ugo avered that “reason being that the notice of appeal was signed by the legal practitioner who failed to write his name on behalf of the company.”
The court similarly upheld Respondents’ preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal.
Justice Watch News gathered that the appeal arose from the decision of High court numbers 3 now number 1, presided over by justice Dije aboki, where the appellant through his counsel, Barrister Ibrahim Baba by way of originating summons challenged the powers of the 1st Respondent to charge levy on commercial vehicle, carrying goods to obtain waybill from the 1st Respondent, pursuant to section 15 paragraph (s) of KAROTA LAW 2012.
The trial Judge, subsequently delivered ruling in favour of the Respondent, which upheld that the KAROTA have the powers under section 15 para (s) to charge levy on commercial vehicle carrying goods to obtain waybill from KAROTA.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant filed an appeal at Court of Appeal Kano Division to reverse the court verdict.
The appellant had filed a notice of appeal in the name of the appellant company but instead of member of the company i. e director or secretary to signed the notice of appeal, the lawyer signed the notice without writting his name but the name of the company.
The appellant argued that since the lawyer is representing the company it is enough to sign the notice of appeal since he paste his stamp(NBA) which is carrying his name.
Read Also: Ummukulsum murder: I don’t want to be killed, — Frank tells court
The Respondent through his counsel, Barrister Mutawakkil Ishaq filed a preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the appellant’s notice of appeal, arguing that by the provision of section 1 sub 1 of Company and Allied Matters Act 2020 and Order 17 rule 1 paragraph (c) of the court of appeal rule
“It is only the Director or Secretary that can sign any document on behalf of the company and not any other person.”
