Facts:

This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos (trial Court) delivered on April 28, 2015, by M. N. Yunusa, J.

The 1st Respondent who was the Applicant in the trial Court, via an Originating Motion on Notice, for judicial review pursuant to Sections 1 (3) and 20 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011 and Order 34 Rules 1 and 5 of the Federal High Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, seeking for a declaration that the failure and refusal by the Appellant who was the 1st Respondent in the trial Court, to disclose or make available to the Applicant the information requested in the Applicant’s letter to the 1st Respondent dated 28th October, 2013 is a violation of the Applicant’s right of access to information established and guaranteed by Section 1 (1) and Section 4(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, among other reliefs.

The 1st Respondent argued through its affidavit that the Appellant utilized public funds by enjoying import duty waivers on two BMW Bulletproof vehicles purchased and sold to the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), thereby becoming a public institution, within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. And, that it ought to make available to the 1st Respondent the information sought from the Appellant.

The Appellant on the other hand through its Counter-affidavit, contended that it was a private limited liability company, funded exclusively by the equity contributions of its shareholders who are Nigerian citizens, and engaged in the buying and selling of motor vehicles and its spare parts, with no iota of government investment, funding and/or subvention. It was further stated that it not being a public institution or private company utilizing public funds or providing public services or performing public functions, the provisions of the FOI Act 2011 do not apply to it, and that even if the trial Court finds that the provisions of the FOI Act 2011 applied to it as a private company, it was entitled under Section 12 of the Act to withhold the information requested.

The learned trial Judge considered arguments posited by both parties and ruled in favour of the 1st Respondent, granting the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reliefs of the 1st Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.