LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Injunctions — Mareva Injunction — Plaintiff Must Establish Funds Are in Custody of Third Party
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A perusal of the appellant's statement of claim reveals that there is no averment alleging that the appellant's funds were in the custody of the respondent. Equally, there was paucity of evidence in that regard.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in A. I. C. Limited v. NNPC (2005) NLC-2372001(SC) at p. 23; Paras A–B.
"A perusal of the appellant's statement of claim reveals that there is no averment that the appellant's funds were in the custody of the respondent. Equally, there was paucity of evidence in that regard."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A Mareva injunction against a third party requires pleading and proof that the defendant’s funds are in that party’s custody. Mere allegation without evidence is insufficient. The principle applies to civil procedure and Mareva injunctions. The rule prevents unjustified freezing orders against innocent third parties. The plaintiff must specifically plead and prove the custodial relationship. Paucity of evidence defeats the application.
