Bulet International Nigeria Limited V. Tajudeen Kolawole Balogun (Trading Under the Name and Style Roasio International) (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A

The writ of summons in this suit was initially issued under the undefended suit. The plaintiff’s claim, who is now the respondent in this appeal, was for the sum of N56, 325.00 being the cost of sub-contracting of full renovation works for block 11/202. The defendant, now the appellant herein, filed a notice of intention to defend. As a result of the notice of intention to defend and with the consent of both parties, the suit was transferred to the general cause list. Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. In paragraph 14 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed as follows:-

“Whereof the plaintiff claims the said sum of N70, 405.00 (SEVENTY THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE NAIRA ONLY) from the Defendant with 21% interest per month on the said sum from 1st day of November, 1992 until the judgment is delivered in this suit and thereafter at 10% interest until the judgment is finally satisfied and the cost of this action.”

In its statement of Defence the appellant herein denied any liability and stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed or any relief at all and that the action should be dismissed with substantial costs.

At the hearing of the matter, the plaintiff testified on his own behalf. The defendant called two witnesses who testified on its behalf. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. This is what the trial judge said:-

“In the final analysis, the plaintiff has proved that there is an outstanding sum of N50, 810.00. The judgment of this Court is therefore in the sum of N50, 810.00 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. In accordance with the provisions of 039 R. 7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 the judgment sum shall attract an interest of 10% per annum with effect from today till the total liquidation of the judgment sum.”

Aggrieved with this decision, the defendant appealed to this Court. The Notice of appeal filed contained three grounds of appeal. They are:-

“1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff is not estopped from raising the issue of outstanding payments and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

PARTICULARS

(a) There was abundant evidence before the Court showing that Exhibit 6 is final payment.

(b) The plaintiff in his reply and evidence led on it did not deny or in any way defend the issue of estoppel but only asserted that Exhibit 6 is not related to the dispute before the court.

(c) There was evidence before the Court, which evidence the court accepted, that Exhibit 6 is connected to the issue before the Court.

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the agreed contract sum stood at N220, 000.00 as against N155,410.00 stated by the Defendant.

PARTICULARS

(a) There exists the evidence of DW1 to the effect that there was a mistake in the calculation of the contract sum.