Judgment
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellant filed this appeal against the decision of Kano State High Court in Suit No. K/298/2005, delivered on 20th December, 2006 and a ruling delivered on 13th March, 2007. In the ruling, the learned trial Judge (Hon. Justice B. A. Sabo Adamu) refused to set aside the decision made on 20/12/2006, in favour of the plaintiff. (Now Respondent). At the trial Court, the Respondent (as Plaintiff) had taken out the Suit No.
K/298/2005 on 17/05/2005, against the Appellant (as Defendant), seeking: (1) “The sum of ₦1,808,662.00 being his professional fees for legal services rendered to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request, to wit: Applying to the Governor of Kano State for statutory consent to create legal Mortgage in favour of Bank of Industry, for a consideration of ₦72,000,000 (Seventy Two Million Naira) over the Defendant’s property, lying, being and situate at New Hospital Road, Gyadi-Gyadi, Kano, covered by Certificate of Occupancy No.
LKN/RES/RC/82/1155, obtaining the necessary statutory consent and preparation of Deed of Tripartite legal Mortgage between the Defendant as the Mortgator, Messrs Sublime Engineering Limited as the borrower and Bank of Industry Limited as the mortgage, (sic) which services the Defendant enjoyed but refused, neglected and failed to pay for same. (2) 10% Court rate of interest on the said sum of ₦1,808,662.00 from the date of judgment until full liquidation of the debt. (3) Cost of filing the suit, together with plaintiff’s solicitor fees in the sum of ₦180,866.02.” The Defendant did not defend the suit to completion, and was foreclosed, and the trial Court proceeded to hold, as follows: “The Plaintiff has proved his claim since April, 2006 and the defendant also opened his defence since the same months but could not go (sic) because he has discovered the difference between the company’s loan and his guarantee ship.
In fact, he might have never told (sic) Counsel of the existence of the company, which will take the loan to the plaintiff so the Rule of Discovered Principal may not apply in the case. In the circumstance, since the defendant is absent and unrepresented without any reason or explanation, the Court has decided to close the defence of the defendant and enter judgment for the plaintiff on the following terms: – 1. That the Defendant is to pay the sum of ₦1,808,622.00 to the plaintiff being the professional fees for legal services rendered. 2.
