IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: TUESDAY 21^ST JULY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/12^M/2026

BETWEEN:

1. AMOS OCHEWOLA
2. SARAH IBOR
3. MUSA KURA
4. STEPHEN SIMON
5. SIMON AKINTSE
6. VERONICA UKURKPASHI
7. MOHAMMED ALIYU
8. SADIKU UMORU
9. HAMZA AKANBI
10. ABDULLAHI SALIHU
11. YAHAYA IBRAHIM
12. ROSELINE OFOR                                                   JUDGMENT CREDITORS/
13. ELIZABETH ETIM                                                   RESPONDENTS                       
14. FRANCIS ENECHE
15. ROSELYN UGBONJI
16. GLORIA ADAMA
17. USMAN ABASHI
18. HAUWA MOHAMMED
19. YAHAYA IBRAHIM
20. ABUBAKAR SHUAIBU
21. IBRAHIM UMAR
22. ABDULMUMINI AHMED
23. JOHN PETER
24. FEDERICK AGBONIFIOROR
25. HAFSATU AJUFO 
26. LAWAL AHMED
27. NAOMI HASSAN
28. EDWIN ELIJAH
29. HAMIDU MOHAMMED
30. MAGAJI HASHIMU
31. AMEH ALI
32. HARUNA ISAH
33. PAUL SUNDAY
34. JIBRIL MOHAMMED
35. ZAINAB MOHAMMED
36. LUKA TAGWAI
37. EDWARD ELLA
38. DAMARIS AUDU
39. ALHERI SAIDU
40. MOSES YUNUSA MOHAMMED
41. JULIUS YILBAAM
42. EDWARD IKWUTA
43. ESTHER MOHAMMED
44. RUTH USMAN
45. BULUS BAWA
46. ITOPA SULIEMAN                                     JUDGMENT CEDITORS/
47. SAMUEL IGBAKA                                                  RESPONDENTS
48. SHUAIBU MUSA
49. JAMES OCHIGBO                                      
50. FRANCIS ASALA                                        
51. BABATUNDE OLATUNJI
52. ALIYU ABDULLAHI
53. MAIRO ADAMU
54. MALACHY NDAN
55. HADIZA AHMED
56. JONATHAN LUKE
57. WILFRED SHEHU 
58. HADIZA JEGEDE
59. JOHN ADACHE
60. VERONICA SHOM
61. MOHAMMED DAN MAHMOUD
62. MOSES ZARMAI
63. PETER EDACHE
64. BONIFACE EMMANUEL
65. ESTHER LIKO
66. ROSEMARY IGYOR
67. ABUBAKAR ISAH
68. SHAMAH DANIEL
69. BONIFACE OCHEJE                                                JUDGMENT CREDITORS/
70. SHADE ALIYU                                                        RESPONDENTS
71. HENRY AKINTOLA
72. MARYAM USMAN
73. IBRAHIM DARAZO
74. ABDULLAHI MOHAMMED
75. LAWAL SANI MADA

AND

KADUNA HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED

(HAMDALA HOTEL, KADUNA)

…………………………..…………..….JUDGMENT DEBTOR/APPLICANT

 

REPRESENTATION

Ogbonna N. Nwanya Esq for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant

M.H. Marwan Esq (Chief Legal Aid Officer) for the Judgment Creditors/Respondents

 

RULING

INTRODUCTION

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant filed a Motion on Notice on the 28^th of April 2026 pursuant to Section 21 of the Sheriff and Civil Processes Act and Section 6(6)(a)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court wherein the Judgment Debtors/Applicants pray the Court for the following orders:

 

1. Payment of Ten Percent (10%) Deposit of the Judgement Sum of N231,001,280.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty-One Million, One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Naira) i.e. N23,100,128.00(Twenty-Three Million, One Hundred Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Naira) upon the grant of this application.
2. Payment of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) per month subsequent to the month of grant of this application (Excluding the month of payment of N23,100,128.00.

 

 

The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows:

1. The Applicant is impecunious and unable to pay the judgement sum except by installments as set out above.
2. As at 28^th day of February, 2026, the Applicant's Outstanding Liabilities is in the Sum of N1,058,131,146.89 (One Billion, Fifty-Eight Million, One Thirty-One Thousand, One Hundred and Forty-Six Naira, Eighty-Nine Kobo).

This application came up for the hearing on the 30^th of June, 2026. Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, Ogbonna M. Nwanya, Esq. identified the application filed on the 28^th of April 2026, accompanied by a 12-paragraph Affidavit deposed to by Samuel Terlumun Pilla, Head, Finance, and Accounts of Applicant. Attached with the affidavit are Exhibits JD1, JD1A, JD1B, JD1C, JD1D, JD1E, JD1F, JD1G, JD1H, JD11.  Counsel also filed a Written Address in support of the application. Counsel adopted these processes and urged the Court to grant this application.

Counsel for the Judgment Creditors/Respondents, M. H. Marwan, Esq, identified a 22-paragraph Counter-Affidavit deposed to by Francis Asala, one of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent and Written Address filed on the 13^h of May 2026. Counsel adopted these processes and urged the Court to dismiss this application.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant stated that on the 13^th day of January 2026, this Court entered Judgment in favour of the Respondents and against the Applicant in the total sum of N231,001,280.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty-One Million, One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Naira). The Applicant is impecunious and has no means of paying the Judgment debt in one lump sum. The hard economic situation or economic depression in Nigeria made worse by Covid-19 pandemic have impacted negatively on the hospitality industry more particularly Kaduna Hotels Company Ltd (the Applicant).

As of the 28^th of February, 2026, the Applicant outstanding liabilities are in the sum of N1,058,131,146.89(One Billion, Fifty-Eight Million, One Thirty-One Thousand, One Hundred and Forty-Six Naira, Eighty-Nine Kobo), which indebtedness is occasioned by the severely dilapidated facilities requiring urgent renovation, non-patronage from government agencies and very limited individual patronage, huge outstanding debts owed to staff, suppliers and contractors, the main hotel has been without electricity supply for over a year, which has crippled operations, the motel section, which was previously the major revenue-generating centre of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, was taken over by the State Government during the Covid-19 pandemic and used as an isolation centre. Although the facility has recently been returned to the Applicant, it requires significant repairs and reactivation before it can resume normal operations and numerous ongoing legal cases from Applicant's ex-staff, contractors, and suppliers, which have further constrained the hotel's operations.

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant further stated that the documents exhibited in this application show the Applicant's inability to pay the said judgment sum except by installments as set out on the motion paper. The Applicant has been unable to pay staff salaries for more than Six (6) months. The Applicant has no assets except dilapidated furniture, beds, beddings and few office computers for her use in carrying out her day-to-day operations. Most of these items mentioned herein are obsolete and the Defendant is not in a position to replace them due to her impecuniosity.

The Applicant has approached some of her shareholders including New Nigeria Development Company Ltd (NNDC) which company is making frantic efforts to assist the Applicant on compassionate grounds. Because of the lean finances of the Applicant, it has become impossible to pay the Applicant Auditors resulting in the Defendant not having her account audited since 2012. In effect, the Applicant has no audited account from 2012 to 2026.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION

The Judgment Creditors/Respondents stated in their counter-affidavit in opposing this application that the judgment was delivered by this Court on 13/1/2026 awarding the sum of N231,001,280.00 in favour of the Judgment Creditors/Respondents. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant has neither paid the judgment sum nor made any concrete effort toward compliance with the judgment of this Court. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant is in contempt of this Court by reason of its continued disobedience to the judgment of the Court.

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant has failed to disclose any exceptional or special circumstance warranting the grant of stay of execution under the Rules and practice of this Honourable Court. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant did not exhibit any credible documentary evidence such as bank statements, audited accounts, statement of assets and liabilities, or proof of financial distress to justify the reliefs sought. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant is financially capable of satisfying the judgment debt but is merely attempting to delay and frustrate execution of the judgment. The proposal by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant to pay the lump sum of 10 percent of the judgement debt and the sum of N2,000,000.00 monthly to 75 Judgment Creditors is not only ridiculous but grossly inadequate and unfair.

It will take approximately 8 years for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant to liquidate the judgment debt under the proposed arrangement; the said monthly payment will translate into approximately N20,000.00 monthly for each Judgment Creditor; and the proposed lump sum payment of about 10% of the judgment debt is grossly inadequate in the circumstances. Several of the Judgment Creditors had exited the services of the Judgment Debtor about seven years before the outbreak of COVID-19 and were still not paid their lawful entitlements. COVID-19 is therefore not responsible for the failure of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant to pay the entitlements of the Judgment Creditors. Many of the Judgment Creditors are presently old, sick, financially distressed, and urgently in need of their entitlements for medical treatment and survival. Further delay in the enforcement of the judgment will occasion severe hardship, suffering, and injustice upon the Judgment Creditors. The judgment creditor is entitled to prompt enforcement of judgment particularly in labour and employment matters.

Granting installmental payment without strict and substantial conditions will occasion undue hardship and injustice to the Judgment Creditors. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant has assets which can be sold toward satisfaction of the judgment debt. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant failed to disclose to this Court what efforts it or its parent company, New Nigeria Development Company Limited, has made toward securing funds to liquidate the judgment debt. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant remains a going concern and has not been declared bankrupt or insolvent.

LEGAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant nominated a lone issue for the determination of this application, to wit:

Whether it is in the interest of justice for this Honourable court to exercise his lordship's discretion in favour of the applicant?

Counsel submitted that a Judgment Creditor (the Respondents herein) has no burden to show that the Judgment-Debtor has the means to pay the Judgment-Creditor immediately when there is an application for installment payment such as the one before this Court. The Judgment Creditors are entitled to expect that they will not be lightly denied the fruit of their litigation. The burden is on the and obligations against its income and all its assets, it deserves to be granted some equitable terms of settling the indebtedness. The Judgment-Debtor by the Affidavit in Support has shown how the economic depression, Covid-19 pandemic and other negative business influences have affected its hospitality business in that the patronage to it by its clients have grown so lean that the Judgment Debtor (Applicant)hardly pays the salaries of its members of staff. 

The Judgment Debtor (Applicant) has shown in the Affidavit in Support that her financial situation is so bad that she cannot pay the auditors to audit her account and that she has no immovable assets.

 

 

LEGAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent nominated a lone issue for the determination of this application, to wit:

Whether the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has placed sufficient materials before this Honourable Court to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion in its favour.

Counsel submitted that an application for installmental payment of judgment debt is akin to an application for stay of execution as both seek to suspend or delay the enjoyment of the fruits of judgment by the successful party. Such application invokes the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court and must therefore be supported by cogent and exceptional circumstances. The law is settled that stay of execution is an equitable and discretionary relief which is not granted as a matter of course. The applicant must disclose special jurisdiction of the Court and must therefore be supported by cogent and exceptional circumstances.

The law is settled that stay of execution is an equitable and discretionary relief which is not granted as a matter of course. The applicant must disclose special circumstances, make full and frank disclosure of its financial position, and present sufficient materials to justify the exercise of the Court's discretion. In Lawrence Okafor & 3 Ors. v. Felix Nnaife, (1987) 7-9 sc87 at 92-94 Oputa, JSC held that a discretion to grant or refuse a stay must take into account the competing rights of the parties to justice. A discretion that is biased in favour of an applicant for a stay but does not adequately take into account the respondent's equal right to justice is a discretion that has not been judicially exercised. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant has failed woefully in this regard. No bank statements, audited accounts, statement of assets and liabilities, or any credible documentary evidence of financial incapacity were exhibited before this Honourable Court. The application is therefore speculative, unsupported, and intended merely to delay execution.

The law is trite that a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment without unnecessary obstruction or delay. In Lagos State Development & Property Corporation v. City Mark (West Africa) Ltd,(1998)6631 7 NWLR (pt 68) @ the Supreme Court held that: the general rule is that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment and the court will not normally make an order that will deprive him of the same. The present judgment arose from labour and employment claims involving the entitlements of 75 workers. Such judgments are meant to be enforced timeously and not frustrated through endless installment proposals designed to defeat the substance of the judgment. The Judgment Debtor/Applicant approached this Honourable Court, seeking equitable indulgence yet failed to present a fair, realistic, or substantial repayment proposal. The proposed 10% lump sum payment is itself grossly inadequate in the circumstances of this case considering the number of Judgment Creditors involved, the prolonged duration of the litigation, and the continuing hardship being suffered by the workers the purported lump sum remains a mere promise as same has not been paid into Court. It is respectfully submitted that a party genuinely desirous of equity and indulgence ought first to demonstrate good faith by paying the proposed lump sum into Court before seeking the discretionary reliefs sought herein.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Having carefully gone through the depositions and written address for and against the grant of this application, the issue for the determination of this application is as follows:

Whether the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has placed sufficient facts before this Court to warrant the exercise of this application in favour of the Judgment Debtor/Applicant

COURT’S DECISION

It is settled law that a judgment becomes enforceable forthwith upon delivery, unless the court directs otherwise. A party who obtains judgment may therefore proceed immediately to enforce it. See HO V. ABUBAKAR (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 323. 

A successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment until it is set aside by a higher court, save in special or exceptional circumstances. See STEYR (NIG.) LTD. V. DE LUKE M. ENT. LTD. (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 458. 

These principles are designed to protect the integrity and finality of the court’s judgment and to ensure that the enforceability of a judgment is not left at the mercy or whims of the judgment debtor, who might otherwise use the processes of the court to frustrate or delay the judgment creditor’s legitimate right to the fruits of victory. This application is one of the exceptional cases that can put a stop to or redefine the enforceability of the judgment of the Court.

Upon delivery of judgment, a party may bring a post-judgment application seeking to vary or redefine the terms of the judgment, particularly where the parties have reached a compromise. In the instant case, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application, praying for an order granting leave to pay the judgment sum of N231,001,280.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty-One Million, One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Naira Only), awarded in favour of the Judgment Creditors/Respondents in the judgment delivered on the 13^th of January 2026, by instalments.

This application is not a judgment compromise application; in S.P.M. LTD. V. ADETUNJI (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 647 the Supreme Court held that a judgment of court often settles the issues in dispute between parties and makes a pronouncement on the rights and entitlements of the parties. There is nothing stopping parties after the judgment of a court from changing their positions from what it was in court in order to compromise the terms of the judgment of the High Court. 

A judgment compromise serves as a pragmatic gateway to post-judgment out-of-court settlement. It enables the parties to negotiate flexible terms for the satisfaction of the judgment debt, thereby easing the tension and hardship that often accompany immediate and full enforcement. Such an approach not only ameliorates the financial pressure on the judgment debtor but also promotes the amicable resolution of disputes, preserves commercial relationships, and aligns with the courts’ overarching policy of encouraging peaceful and expeditious settlement of matters, even after judgment. 

This Court recognises that parties are at liberty to explore and formalise such compromises, provided they are fair, voluntary, and do not undermine the integrity of the judgment or the rights of the judgment creditor.

This application, by its nature when granted, is a stay of execution of the judgment of this Court. This is the holding of the Court of Appeal in A.C.B. LTD. V. DOMINICO BUILDERS CO. LTD. (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 223) 296 where the Court held that prayer for installment payment of judgment debt, when granted, operates as a stay of the judgment. 

An application for installment payment of a judgment debt is akin to an application for stay of execution. The same principles therefore apply. Undoubtedly, the present application calls for the exercise of the Court’s discretion, which must be exercised both judicially and judiciously. As with every application involving the exercise of discretion, the onus lies on the Applicant to satisfy the Court that the justice of the case favours the grant of the relief sought. In other words, the Applicant must establish special or exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of execution through payment of the judgment debt by instalments.

In so doing, the Applicant is required to make a full and frank disclosure in the affidavit in support of the application, showing its assets and means of income, as well as its liabilities and other obligations. The Applicant must further demonstrate that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, a refusal of the application would occasion injustice and inequity. In LAWRENCE OKAFOR & 3 ORS V. FELIX NNAIFE (1987) 7–9 SC 87 at 92–94, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for balance in the exercise of discretion. Oputa, JSC, succinctly captured it thus:

A discretion to grant or refuse a stay must take into account the competing rights of the parties to justice. A discretion that is biased in favour of an applicant for a stay but does not adequately take into account the respondent’s equal right to justice is a discretion that has not been judicially exercised.

Similarly, in AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V. DOMINICO BUILDERS COMPANY LTD (supra) at 302–303, Uwaifo, JCA (as he then was) stated:

“It must be appreciated that a request for instalmental payment which will stay execution of a judgment is a prayer for an equitable relief… A court cannot do equity in the right manner unless there are sufficient facts disclosed in support of the exercise of that sort of a relief which is an appeal to the conscience of the court. Every court called upon to exercise its discretion to order instalmental payment of a judgment debt must therefore take it that it is a judicial function that needs a careful analysis of the facts. It is certainly not an order to be made as a matter of course… there must be some special circumstances based on full disclosure.”

What constitutes special circumstances will necessarily vary from case to case and must be determined on the peculiar facts and merits of each case. Section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 empowers this Court to grant a stay of execution either unconditionally or upon such conditions as may be imposed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Although the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 make no specific provision for payment of judgment debt by instalments, settled authorities require that an applicant for such relief must prove entitlement thereto by full and frank disclosure of his financial position and by showing that special circumstances exist to justify the grant.

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant stated that the Applicant is impecunious and has no means of paying the Judgment debt in one lump sum. The hard economic situation or economic depression in Nigeria, made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted negatively on the hospitality industry, more particularly Kaduna Hotels Company Ltd (the Applicant). The Applicant has no assets except dilapidated furniture, beds, beddings and few office computers for her use in carrying out her day-to-day operations. Most of these items mentioned herein are obsolete and the Defendant is not in a position to replace them due to her impecuniosity.

The Judgment Creditors/Respondents, however, stated that the Judgment Debtor/Applicant is financially capable of satisfying the judgment debt but is merely attempting to delay and frustrate execution of the judgment. The proposal by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant to pay the lump sum of 10 per cent of the judgment debt and the sum of N2,000,000.00 monthly to 75 Judgment Creditors is not only ridiculous but grossly inadequate and unfair. It will take approximately 8 years for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant to liquidate the judgment debt under the proposed arrangement; the said monthly payment will translate into approximately N20,000.00 monthly for each Judgment Creditor; and the proposed lump sum payment of about 10% of the judgment debt is grossly inadequate in the circumstances. 

Having regard to the facts stated above the parties, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant contends that it is impecunious and lacks the financial capacity to liquidate the judgment debt of N231,001,280.00 in a lump sum. It attributes its financial distress primarily to the harsh economic climate in Nigeria, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has severely impacted the hospitality industry. According to the Applicant, its only assets consist of dilapidated furniture, beds, beddings, and a few obsolete office computers used for day-to-day operations. It asserts that it lacks the resources to replace or upgrade these assets.

In contrast, the Judgment Creditors/Respondents vehemently oppose the application. They maintain that the Judgment Debtor/Applicant is financially capable of satisfying the judgment debt but is merely employing delaying tactics to frustrate and stall execution. They describe the Applicant’s proposal, payment of 10% of the judgment sum as a lump sum deposit, coupled with monthly instalments of N2,000,000.00, as ridiculous, grossly inadequate, and unfair to the 75 Judgment Creditors.

The Respondents further highlight that, under the proposed arrangement, it would take approximately eight (8) years to fully liquidate the judgment debt. The monthly instalment of N2,000,000.00 translates to roughly N26,667.00 per Judgment Creditor per month, which they consider manifestly insufficient given the magnitude of the debt and the length of time involved. They also contend that the initial lump sum payment representing only about 10% of the total judgment debt is unreasonably low in the circumstances.

A request for installment payment which will stay the execution of a judgment is a prayer for an equitable relief, and like other equitable reliefs, it requires disclosure of sufficient facts to enable the court exercise its equitable jurisdiction. In AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V. DOMINICO BUILDERS COMPANY LTD (supra) pages 302-303, paras G-C where it was held that

It must be appreciated that a request for instalmental payment which will stay execution of a judgment is a prayer for an equitable relief. A court cannot do equity in the right manner unless there are sufficient facts disclosed in support of the exercise of that sort of a relief which is an appeal to the conscience of the court. Every court called upon to exercise its discretion to order instalmental payment of a judgment debt must therefore take it that it is a judicial function that needs a careful analysis of the facts. It is certainly not an order to be made as a matter of course. Any relief not granted as a matter of course must necessarily be sufficiently justifiable on the facts. In other words, there must be some special circumstances based on full disclosure: see Martins v. Nicannar Foods Co. Ltd. (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.74) 75. This court observed in Chukwu v. Onyia (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.130) 80 at 84-85 that the disclosure should be as follows:

"Where judgment has been given for the payment of a sum of money and the judgment debtor seeks a stay of execution, the affidavit or affidavits relied upon by him apart from stating relevant facts upon which to consider the principles for a stay, must ensure that those facts are full and frank, including a complete and accurate account and description of all the applicant's income, assets, interests and properties as well as his obligations and liabilities. That is the only way the court can best exercise its discretion to grant or refuse the stay."

The above observation is applicable to a prayer for instalmental payment which when granted operates as a stay."

The judgment Debtor/Applicant is an incorporated company under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, and its regulations are subject to the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. 

Section 418 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 provides that:

(1) Every company having a share capital, other than a small company, shall, once in every year, make and deliver to the Commission an annual return in the prescribed form.

(2) The annual return shall be made up to a date not later than the date of the company’s annual general meeting in each year.

(3) The annual return shall contain the following particulars— (a)          the address of the registered office of the company; (b)   the register of members and share capital of the company; 

(c) the indebtedness of the company;

(d) the directors and secretary of the company; 

(e) the names and addresses of the persons who are the members of the company and the number of shares held by each of them;

(f) the names of persons who have ceased to be members since the date of the last return or, in the case of the first return, since the incorporation of the company;

(g) such other particulars as may be prescribed by the Commission.

(4) The annual return shall be accompanied by — 

(a) a copy of the audited financial statements of the company; and 

(b) the statutory declaration of the directors confirming that the company has complied with the provisions of this Act relating to the filing of annual returns and payment of fees.

(5) The annual return shall be signed by a director and the secretary of the company and shall be delivered to the Commission within 42 days after the annual general meeting of the company.

Gleaning from the above Section 418(4) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, to prove the financial standing of an incorporated company like the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, it must file its annual returns along with the audited financial statements every year. The audited financial statements ensure that what the directors present to the members at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) is not self-serving but has been independently verified. As noted in company law jurisprudence, the audit serves as a watchdog function, protecting the company and its stakeholders from the potential abuse of power by those who manage it. In simple terms, the audited statement of account is not just a compliance document but a certificate of credibility of the company’s financial health and stewardship. 

The Court of Appeal held in AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V. DOMINICO BUILDERS COMPANY LTD (supra) pages 302 paras G where it was held that

it must be specifically noted that the applicant is an incorporated limited liability company. Under the Companies Act 1968, it is. enjoined by law to prepare an audited annual statement of account. This will show its assets and liabilities. The least the respondent should have done was to exhibit its last audited account. It either failed to do this or suppressed it. But rather it asked for a stay of execution of the money judgment against it and for the same to be liquidated by instalmental payment when its financial position was not satisfactorily made known.

The Judgment Debtor/Applicant failed to exhibit its audited financial statements in support of this application. The Applicant stated in paragraph 10 of its supporting affidavit that, due to lean finances, it has been unable to pay its auditors, and consequently, its accounts have not been audited since 2012. The Applicant further deposed that it has no audited accounts from 2012 up to 2026. Assuming this deposition is true, the Applicant should have exhibited its bank account statement to show the financial standing of the Applicant. There is no full disclosure of the Applicant’s financial status. An application succeeds or fails on the strength of the affidavit. For failure to exhibit its last audited financial statement or bank account statement, the Judgment Debtor/Applicant fails to persuade the Court to exercise judicial discretion in its favour.

More worrisome is the Applicant’s proposal of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) per month as instalment payment. Given that there are 75 Judgment Creditors, this proposal translates to approximately N26,667.00 per creditor per month. In the circumstances of this case, the proposal is grossly inadequate, unreasonable, and unfair to the Judgment Creditors.

To ensure fairness and due enforcement of the judgment, it is advisable that the parties make genuine efforts to reach a realistic and mutually acceptable payment plan that balances the interest of both sides. This is particularly necessary considering the advanced age of many of the Judgment Creditors, their prevailing health conditions, and their pressing financial needs. However, this observation is made by way of advice and does not constitute an order of the Court.

Flowing from the foregoing, the sole issue for determination is resolved against the Applicant. Consequently, the Judgment Debtor’s application for leave to pay the judgment sum of N231,001,280.00 by instalments is hereby refused and dismissed in its entirety.

Ruling is entered accordingly. 

 

HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

HON. JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION