Akin Akinyemi V Odu’a Investment (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

The appellant, herein, as plaintiff, took a writ of summons from the High Court of Justice of Oyo State holden at Ibadan (trial court herein). In his statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that he is a chartered Estate Surveyor, and valuer He trades under the name and style of AKINYEMI & ASSOCIATES.

The respondent as defendant at the trial court is an incorporated private Limited liability Company owned exclusively by the then Government of Oyo, Ondo, Ogun and Osun States. By a letter dated 3rd May, 1993, the defendant offered the plaintiff the valuation of the assets of three of its subsidiary companies, viz:

Great Nigeria insurance Co. Ltd; Grenic Nig, Ltd and Lagos Airport Hotel Ltd. With respect to the fees to be paid to the plaintiff for the job, the defendant offered to pay a simple fee or honorarium. The plaintiff, reacting to the offer, made a counter-offer on the fees to be paid. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not reject his counter offer. Instead, the defendant wanted the reports to be ready by 21st June, 1993, the plaintiff averred further that he did the valuation as directed and submitted the reports and he later forwarded his bills for the three jobs. And, in settlement of the bills, the defendant forwarded to the plaintiff a total sum of N330,000,00 for the three jobs. The plaintiff averred that he accepted the N330,000.00 as part payment under protest and demanded for the balance of his fees as scaled down unilaterally by the plaintiff in his letter of 27th July, 1993. The plaintiff repeated his demand for the balance of his fees but still the defendant failed to pay the balance. The plaintiff was, in October, 1993, invited to a meeting with the Management of the defendant over his fees, but the meeting produced no useful result. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered ‘loss and damage and made the following claims against the defendant:

See also  Moses Jua V The State (2010) LLJR-SC

“WHEREOF the plaintiff claims as follows:

i. DECLARATION that the total sum of N365 ,481.00 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff does not represent proper, adequate and fair remuneration due to the plantiff for his professional services in carrying out a valuation of some assets of three subsidiaries companies (sic) of the defendant on the instructions of the defendant.

ii. AN Order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of N1,119,899.40 or any other sum as upon a quantum meriut, representing the balance due and payable to him for his said professional services.

iii. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the sum awarded under claim (ii) above from February, 1994 until payment.

The defendant in its statement of defence denied each and every allegation of fact contained in plaintiff’s statement of claim except where same is expressly admitted by the defendant.

In answer to some new points in the statement of defence, the plaintiff filed a reply to the defendant’s statement of defence.

The matter proceeded to trial stage. Evidence was taken and final addresses were made by the respective learned counsel for the parties. The trial court at the end of hearing, entered judgment for the plaintiff with some different rates of interest.

The defendant was dissatisfied and it appealed to the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal (court below). After reviewing the whole case placed before it including both oral and written submissions by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the court below set aside the judgment of the trial court and entered judgment for the appellant.

See also  E.o. Lakanmi & Ors V. The Attorney-general (West) & Ors (1970) LLJR-SC

Aggrieved by the court below’s decision the plaintiff/respondent, now appellant herein, filed his appeal before this court on six grounds of appeal praying this court to allow the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Briefs of arguments were settled by the parties to the appeal as per the requirement of our Court’s Rules. The learned counsel for the appellant set out

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *