Gilsod Associates Limited V. Association Of Local Government Of Nigeria (Algon) (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal from the decision of the F.C.T. High Court, (to be called High court hereafter) delivered on the 31/5/06 in suit No. FCT/HC/CV /263/02 was brought vide a notice of appeal dated and filed on the 2/6/06 by the Appellant, who was Plaintiff at the High Court. In the said decision of the High Court, the Appellant’s claims against the Respondent were dismissed for want of credible evidence to prove same after a document tendered by the Appellant at the trial was rejected by the High Court on the ground that it was not pleaded. The Appellant’s case was initially filed under the undefended list procedure of the High Court but eventually transferred to the general cause list where the parties filed pleadings on which evidence was taken at the trial.

The claims of the Appellant which were denied by the Respondent before the High Court were as follows;-

“a. The sum of N5,637,500 (Five Million Six Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Naira only) being the total outstanding debt owed the Plaintiff by the Defendants’ failure to meet their contractual obligation of paying the Plaintiff for numbering their newly acquired Prado Jeep Vehicles.

b) Interest charged at the prevailing bank rate as at 25th October 2000 the date on the dishonored cheque up to the date of judgment.

c) 10% interest per annum on the judgment debt from the date of judgment until final liquidation.

d) Cost of this action.”

A witness was called by the Appellant at the trial through whom four documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and D. Exhibits A and B are offer and acceptance respectively by Appellant and Respondent for the licensing of the Respondent’s Prado Jeeps, Exhibit c was a letter of demand from the Appellant’s counsel to the Respondent while Exhibit D is a cheque to the Appellant by the Respondent. A way bill tendered through the witness was rejected on the ground that it was pleaded, as stated earlier.

On its part, the Respondent called two (2) witnesses in defence of the case presented by the Appellant.

There are five (5) grounds contained on the notice of appeal from which the learned counsel has distilled three (3) issues which he submitted for consideration by the Court in the appeal in the Appellant’s brief filed on 12/11/08. They are:-

“3.0.2 Whether the rejection of the way bill from the Federal Road Safety Corps tendered in support of the fact that the contract was performed, on the ground that the document was not pleaded, was right and did not occasion injustice to the Appellant. (Ground 1).

3.0.3 Whether the learned trial Judge did not misplace the onus and burden of proof in the case- (Ground IV).

3.0.4 Whether the learned trial Judge did not reach perverse conclusion due to errors made in evaluating the evidence led before him. (Grounds II, III & V).”

For the Respondent, learned Counsel at page 5 of the Respondent’s brief filed on 19/3/10 but deemed on 11/5/10 had raised two (2) issues which he said are germane in the appeal as follows:-