Facts:

Following a letter of application dated 10th December, 2012 by the respondent to the appellant, the appellant vide an offer letter dated 20th December, 2012 offered the respondent credit facilities to the tune of N3,909,310,000.00 (Three Billion, Nine Hundred and Nine Million, Three Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) for the procurement of assembly inputs/components for production of 20,000 units of laptops for distribution to the Nigeria Police and refinancing of bank loans. Following the agreement of the parties, the facility was initially restricted vide an offer letter of 19th September, 2014 and subsequently vide an offer letter dated 21st October, 2015 to consolidate the already existing Term Loan and Working Capital Loan into a single facility to enable the respondent pay down the outstanding indebtedness to the appellant. The respondent duly executed a Loan and Mortgage Agreement (LMA) dated 18th February, 2015 with an unequivocal intention to use its assets and property located at Oke-Oregun Village, Lagos State (now known as 11, Kudirat Abiola Road, Oregun Ikeja, Lagos) as security for the loan facility granted by the appellant. The LMA was duly registered with the CAC.

It is the appellant’s case that shortly after the restructuring of the facilities, the respondent’s account with the appellant began to witness low turnover and the respondent began reneging on its obligation to clear all outstanding instalments and interest pending contrary terms of the restructured facility agreement. Consequently, a demand notice was issued to the respondent but the respondent failed to discharge its obligation. Due to the failure of the respondent to liquidate the outstanding indebtedness, the appellant made a decision to appoint a receiver in line with the terms of the agreement executed by the parties.

By an unclear deed of appointment, the appellant appointed one Emmanuel Adeyeye Oyebanji, as the receiver/manager of the respondent’s Property. Sequel to the appointment, the receiver/manager commenced an action leading to the instant appeal, seeking for the determination of the Court on a sole question thus:

“Whether or not EMMANUEL ADEYEYE OYEBANJI being receiver/manager of the Respondent’s property and assets mortgaged to the Applicant by virtue of the registered Loan and Mortgage Agreement dated 18th February, 2015, is entitled to remain in possession, continue to manage, superintend and to sell the said property and assets by virtue of the provisions of the said Agreement and Section 393 of CAMA and his Deed of Appointment dated 19th January, 2017 without interference, obstruction, and/or hindrance in any manner from the Respondent or its agents, privies or assigns.”

The respondent in opposition challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the Appellant’s suit by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection.

In a Ruling delivered on 16th June, 2018 the trial Court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the appointment of the receiver/manager was not done in accordance with the provisions of Section 396(1)(a) and (b) CAMA. Consequently, the appellant’s suit was declared incompetent for non-compliance with due process of law, and therefore struck out.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the appellant has approached the Court of Appeal to ventilate its grievance by filing a Notice of Appeal.