md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
EDILCON NIGERIA LTD –Appellant
AND
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC –Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.(Delivering the Leading judgment): The appeal herein is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, delivered on the 13th April, 2000. The Appellant in this appeal, who was the plaintiff at the High Court of Plateau State, claimed against the Respondent the following reliefs:-
“1. The entire sum of N240,641.74 due to the plaintiff being balance credit in favour of the plaintiff after the overdraft is deducted from the amount credited and 21% compound interest.
2. The plaintiff also claims the sum of N150,000.00 being damages for conversion of the plaintiffs aforesaid amount being money had and received but the defendant converted same to its personal use.
3. That the plaintiff also claims the sum of N55,00.00 being damages deformation (sic) as the defendant has instructed the sale of the entire properties mortgaged by the plaintiff.
4. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant its servants, agents or privies from selling the following properties:-
(a) Yakubu Gowon way Anglo Jos Plateau State.
(b) No.1 Madaki Street Bukuru Plateau State.(c). Plot No, BL569 Bisichi Jantar Sabon Gidan Danyaya Barkin Ladi Local Government Area.”
The Respondent as defendant at the trial Court denied the Appellant’s claims and set up a counter claim as follows:
(a) N1,418,076,10 DR. being loan and interest.
(b) Interest at Bank rate of 34% from 1/10/93 until Judgment and thereafter at 34% until full payment.
At the end of the trial, Ahinche J., in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 15th December 1995, dismissed the Appellant’s claims and entered judgment for the Defendant on its counterclaim, but granted 21% post judgment interest until the judgment sum is fully and totally paid.
Appellant’s appeal to the Court of appeal, Jos Division, was dismissed in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 13th April, 2000. With the leave of this Court donated on the 15th January 2007, the Appellant filed its notice of appeal on the 24th of January 2007 containing four grounds of appeal.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant at page 4 of the Appellant’s brief of argument settled by Solomon E. Umoh SAN dated and filed on the 12th of May 2008, formulated three issues for determination of this appeal as follows:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it relied on Exhibit 16A on a different ground from that advanced by the learned trial Judge, without a Respondent’s Notice to that effect.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant was bound by Exhibit 17A, even though the Appellant was not a party to the said document,
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the appellants claims and entering judgment ln favour of the respondent.”
Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1, issue 2 from grounds 2,3 and 4 while issue 3 is distilled from the 5th ground of appeal.
Chief G. O. Okafor, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent issued a preliminary objection to the competence of this appeal which he filed on the 7/8/2005 in the following terms:
The Appellants appeal in SC.122/2001 is incompetent as this Honourable Court on the 15/1/2007 had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal having dismissed earlier application on the 6/6/2005 on the merit.”
Learned Senior Counsel argued the preliminary objection at pages 7 – 11 of the Respondent’s brief of argument dated and filed on the 7/8/2015 and went on to formulate three issues for determination of this appeal as follows:
“1. Whether the lower Court was right when it relied on Exhibit 16A on a different ground from that advanced by the learned trial judge without a Respondent’s Notice to that effect.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant was bound by Exhibit 17A.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the Appellants claims and entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent.”
Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1, issue 2 is distilled from grounds 2, 3 and 4, while issue 3 is distilled from the 5th ground of appeal.
2. The plaintiff also claims the sum of N150,000.00 being damages for conversion of the plaintiffs aforesaid amount being money had and received but the defendant converted same to its personal use.
3. That the plaintiff also claims the sum of N55,00.00 being damages deformation (sic) as the defendant has instructed the sale of the entire properties mortgaged by the plaintiff.
4. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant its servants, agents or privies from selling the following properties:-
(a) Yakubu Gowon way Anglo Jos Plateau State.
(b) No.1 Madaki Street Bukuru Plateau State.(c). Plot No, BL569 Bisichi Jantar Sabon Gidan Danyaya Barkin Ladi Local Government Area.”
The Respondent as defendant at the trial Court denied the Appellant’s claims and set up a counter claim as follows:
(a) N1,418,076,10 DR. being loan and interest.
(b) Interest at Bank rate of 34% from 1/10/93 until Judgment and thereafter at 34% until full payment.
At the end of the trial, Ahinche J., in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 15th December 1995, dismissed the Appellant’s claims and entered judgment for the Defendant on its counterclaim, but granted 21% post judgment interest until the judgment sum is fully and totally paid.
Appellant’s appeal to the Court of appeal, Jos Division, was dismissed in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 13th April, 2000. With the leave of this Court donated on the 15th January 2007, the Appellant filed its notice of appeal on the 24th of January 2007 containing four grounds of appeal.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant at page 4 of the Appellant’s brief of argument settled by Solomon E. Umoh SAN dated and filed on the 12th of May 2008, formulated three issues for determination of this appeal as follows:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it relied on Exhibit 16A on a different ground from that advanced by the learned trial Judge, without a Respondent’s Notice to that effect.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant was bound by Exhibit 17A, even though the Appellant was not a party to the said document,
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the appellants claims and entering judgment ln favour of the respondent.”
Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1, issue 2 from grounds 2,3 and 4 while issue 3 is distilled from the 5th ground of appeal.
Chief G. O. Okafor, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent issued a preliminary objection to the competence of this appeal which he filed on the 7/8/2005 in the following terms:
The Appellants appeal in SC.122/2001 is incompetent as this Honourable Court on the 15/1/2007 had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal having dismissed earlier application on the 6/6/2005 on the merit.”
Learned Senior Counsel argued the preliminary objection at pages 7 – 11 of the Respondent’s brief of argument dated and filed on the 7/8/2015 and went on to formulate three issues for determination of this appeal as follows:
“1. Whether the lower Court was right when it relied on Exhibit 16A on a different ground from that advanced by the learned trial judge without a Respondent’s Notice to that effect.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant was bound by Exhibit 17A.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the Appellants claims and entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent.”
Issue 1 is distilled from ground 1, issue 2 is distilled from grounds 2, 3 and 4, while issue 3 is distilled from the 5th ground of appeal.
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading EDILCON NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.