Alhaji Hussani Shagirawa V. Aminu Aliyu (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kano State High Court, delivered by Hon. Justice Usman Malam Na’abba on the 4th day of July 2011.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows:

The Plaintiff now Respondent in this appeal had a business relationship with the Defendant/Appellant, both parties supplied goat and sheep skin to Kanotan S. A. Limited, the Plaintiff/Respondent supplied the skin to the company in the name of the Defendant/Appellant, and at all times payments were made by the company to the account of the Defendant/Appellant who would now transfer the payment to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

The company made total payment of N57,029,663.00,to the account of the Defendant/Appellant, who in turn transferred N43,624,493.00, to the Plaintiff/Respondent. When Plaintiff demanded for the balance Defendant now said he was entitled to commission of N50:00k on each grade 2 piece of skin.

Dispute arose as a result of reconciliation of accounts which eventually culminated into litigation, with the Plaintiff/Respondent taking out writ of summons against the Defendant/Appellant before the lower Kano State High Court.

Pleadings were exchanged and the matter was then heard and determined. At the trial Plaintiff/Respondent called four witnesses and tendered one exhibit a letter from Kanotan S. A. Ltd, which the lower court admitted as exhibit A, let me state that Exh. A is a letter addressed to the Kano Emirate council.

The Defendant/Appellant on his part called four witnesses and tendered two exhibits B and C.

At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge gave Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and naturally the Defendant felt aggrieved and therefore filed notice of appeal, and the said notice was eventually amended, and from Appellants five grounds of Appeal, counsel distilled two issues for determination, they are:

1. Whether on the facts and in all the circumstance of the case, the trial court was right in awarding to the respondent sum of N8, 738,620.00 as claimed by him (this issue is distilled from grounds 1, and 4 of the Amended Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence before the court the learned trial Judge did rightly or properly assess and evaluate the evidence before giving Judgment in favour of the Respondent (This issues is distilled from grounds 2, 3, and 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

The Respondent also nominated two issues for determination, they are also reproduced as follows:

1. Whether from the pleadings and evidence adduced, the trial court was right in awarding the Respondent the sum of N8, 738,620.00 as claimed by him.
2. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence before the court, the learned trial Judge did rightly or properly assess and evaluate the evidence before giving judgment in favour of the Respondent and whether failure to make pronouncement on exhibit B and C tendered by the appellant has accessioned a miscarriage of Justice so as to warrant this court tempering with the findings.

Both parties in this appeal appear to have common issues for determination as the issues submitted bear substantial similarly. I therefore adopt Appellants issues, as the issues to resolve in this appeal.

Appellant said Respondents claim was for special damage which required specific proof, he said the exhibit relied on by the lower court exhibit A, did not mention the name of the Respondent that the document made no reference to Respondents claim at the lower court, it was argued on behalf of the Appellant again that in a claim for special damage, the Plaintiff must plead and prove special damages specifically and strictly, and the Plaintiff must lead credible evidence at the trial to establish the claim with particularity, counsel for the Appellant said there must be pleadings and credible evidence giving specific particulars of the claim, Appellant relied on KURUBO V. ZACH MATISON (NIG LTD) (1992) 5 NWLR (PART 239) 102 (2), NEKA CO. LTD V. ACB LTD (2004) 2 NWLR PART 858 AND XTOUDOUS STRVIES NIGERIA LTD v. TAISEL (W.A) LTD 2006 16 NWLR PART (1003) 46 WRN 1 AT 27.

Appellant said Respondents claim failed to satisfy the requirement of the law that, it must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, that Respondents claim especially paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Statement did not specifically plead and particularize how the amount of N8,738,620.00 was arrived at.

Appellants counsel said a simple calculation will reveal that the sum claimed by the Respondent was not owed, counsel said going by the calculation of the Plaintiff/Respondent it will be found that the amount owed would be N7,494,020.00 and not N8,738,620.00 as claimed by the Respondent; Appellants said a claim for special damage will not succeed even where there is admission by the other party, Appellant relied on NNPC v. CLIFCO NIGERIA LTD (2011) 4 SCM 194 AT 217 – 218, Appellant therefore contended that Respondent having failed to meet the standard of proof required by law, the claim for the sum of N8,738,620.00 as awarded by the lower court must fail. Appellant therefore urged this court to so hold.