Judgment
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant instituted Suit No: B/505/2011 before the State High Court of Edo State on 18/7/201 via a Writ of Summons filed on the same day alongside a Statement of Claim. The same was amended by the leave of the lower Court granted on 14th April, 2016. The Amended Statement of Claim was filed on the 19th April, 2016 wherein the Appellant claimed against the Respondent thus: “1.
The total sum of N1, 000, 000.00 (One million Naira) only being the cost of Legal services, cost of investigation & research, out-of-pocket expenses and general damages. 2. The order of Court on the Defendant to pay 30% interest on the total sum claim from the 12th day of May, 2010 till the delivery of judgment and 20% interest on the judgment debt from the date of Judgment is fully liquidated.” The Respondent filed an amended Statement of Defence and to which the Appellant filed a reply. The parties testified on their behalf.
The judgment of the lower Court was delivered on12/12/2017 finding that the Claimant has not proved his case and dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims. He filed his Notice of Appeal on 6/4/2018 which was founded on four grounds of appeal. The record of appeal was transmitted to this Court on 22/6/2018. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument, the Respondent’s Brief of Argument were filed on 25/6/18 and 7/11/2018 respectively. Two issues were postulated by the Appellant in his brief thus: “1.
Whether there are errors in law and facts and inadmissible pieces of evidence sufficient enough to enable the appeal to succeed. 2. Whether the Honourable Court sufficiently examined the legally admissible facts as presented by witnesses.
The Respondent for his part propositioned a lone issue thus: “Whether the trial Court sufficiently examined and admitted the legally admissible evidence as presented by the parties before arriving at the judgment dismissing the claim of the Appellant.” In respect of issue one, the Appellant argued that the mode of service of documents between the Respondent and himself was one on one. All the documents that passed through him and the Respondent were served one on one.
