P.P. Madus Nigeria Ltd. V. Roads Nigeria Plc. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant as plaintiff in the High Court of Justice, Sokoto (hereinafter referred to as “The Lower Court”) sued the Respondent, as the defendant. The Appellant’s claim before the lower court was as follows:-

“a) The sum of N13, 474, 685. 32 (Thirteen Million, Four Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty five Naira Thirty Two Kobo) owed to the Plaintiff with interest at 21% from 11th September, 1996 till judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 28% per annum until the entire sum is liquidated.

b) Cost of the action.”

The Writ of Summons was taken out in the undefended list and it was supported by a 13 – point affidavit. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this affidavit contain the salient facts upon which the action was premised. These paragraphs are hereunder reproduced:-

“3. That in 1996, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to be supplying to it, on demand, various motor spare parts and equipment for the repair needs of Defendants numerous construction vehicles and machines.

4. That the contractual relationship was of a continuing nature and usually effected by the Defendant issuing a Local Purchase Order (L.P.O.) with payment terms of “30 days – cheque” clearly indicated.
5. That by the end of 1999, the Defendants total indebtedness stood at N12,975.765:32 (Twelve Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Five Naira, Thirty Two Kobo. The copy of the Statement of account as compiled by the Defendants themselves is hereby annexed as Exhibit PM2.
6. That meanwhile the Plaintiff acting on the Defendants demand and promises of payment continued to supply the said motor spare parts to them on credit basis, Between the period 10/08/2001 to 28/11/2001, the Defendant incurred further debt of N698,920:00 (Six Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty Naira). The details of the transaction delivered to the Defendant is annexed as Exhibit PM5
7. That the Plaintiff through its solicitors demanded from the Defendant for the liquidation of outstanding sums but the Defendant through its Solicitors requested for time. The copies of the said letters are annexed as Exhibit PM6 and PM7 respectively.
8. That the Defendant thereafter on 28/02/2003 issued to the Plaintiff their cheque in the sum of N200.000.00 as part payment leaving a balance of N13,474,685:32 (Thirteen Million, Four Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand and Thirty Two Kobo) yet unpaid. The copies of the Defendants receipt issued by the Plaintiff are annexed and marked Exhibit PM8 and PM9 respectively.
9. That the Defendants current total outstanding indebtedness to the Plaintiff is N13,474,685:32 (Thirteen Million, Four Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Thirty – Two Kobo.”

The respondent filed a Notice of Intention to Defend and an affidavit in support. It is a 4 – paragraph affidavit Paragraph 3 (a) – (k) are hereunder reproduced:-

“3. (a) That he has seen the writ of summon filed by the plaintiff together with the affidavit in support.

(b) That it is not true that the defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of N13,474,685,32 or any other amounts at all.

(c) That the plaintiff was one of the defendant’s supplier of motor spare parts and the transaction was initially carried on a cash and carry basis.

(d) That though it is true that as at early 1999 the defendant’s managing director wrote Exhibit “PM4” wherein he put the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff at N12,975,765.32 that figure became a subject of dispute between the defendant and the plaintiff.

(e) That the cause of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was due to the fact that the plaintiff could not properly substantiate some of its claims for motor spare parts purportedly supplied to the defendant.

(f) That Exhibit “PM2” did not originate from the defendant and the same is denied vehemently.

(g) That it is equally not true that the plaintiff obtained any loan from First bank Plc. Sokoto branch to fund the supply of motor spare parts to the defendant.