Alhaji Aminu Ibrahim V. Mr. Felix Osim (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADENEKAN ADEMOLA, J.C.A. 

The Respondent, who was plaintiff in the court below, filed a Writ of Summons claiming against the Appellant as follows:

(1) “The sum of N117,600 due, owing and payable to the Plaintiff as his entitlement of the net profit of a Contractual business transaction entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on Saturday, the 29th day of December 1984.

(2) The sum of N382,400 being general damages for breach of the said contract caused by the defendant on account of the said business transaction. (the underlining is mine)”

Respondent filed a Statement of Claim while the Appellant filed a Statement of Defence and a Motion.

The motion was brought under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules wherein the Appellant sought an Order:

(a) That the Statement of Claim be struck out on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and

(b) That it is frivolous and vexatious.

Segun, J. dismissed the Appellant’s motion and in subsequent proceedings, he the Learned Judge granted an Order staying proceedings in the court below. Both Orders are now the subject of appeals pending in this court. This appeal is concerned with the Order of dismissal of Appellant’s motion.

Two grounds of appeal are covered in the brief filed on behalf of the Appellant:

(1) The learned Judge erred in law in holding that the Statement of Claim disclosed a proper cause of action in paragraph 8 thereof; and

The Learned Judge erred in law in failing to hold that the alleged transaction from which the Plaintiff sought to benefit was illegal and contrary to public policy.

Mr. Mbanefo argued the appeal on behalf of the Appellant. He had argued that the nature of the contractual business transaction was not spelt out either in the Writ or the Statement of Claim. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim talked about appellant agreeing to finance the business transaction by the utilization of the respondent’s Import Licence. Paragraphs 9, 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Statement of Claim were dealt with in the brief filed by Mr. Mbanefo and it was submitted that from the Writ and the Statement of Claim no proper cause of action is evident from the Statement of Claim, and no particular contract was spelt out and neither were the terms breached shown. The case of Shell BP v. Ogunsanya 1976 6 S. C. page 89 was cited in support that the Writ and the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action in this matter.

On the second ground of the appeal it was contended by Mr. Mbanefo that the relevant contract and the performance of it was illegal and contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable.