AG of Kaduna State & Ors v. Atta & Ors (1986)

LawGlobal Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH DIEKOLA OGUNDERE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

Before S.U. Mohammed CJ at the Kaduna High Court, the Respondents herein brought an action against the Appellants jointly and severally for the sum of N55,915.90 being professional fees payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of professional services rendered, at the request of the appellants in respect of the Staff Training Centre, Funtua, Kaduna State.

Pleadings were ordered and delivered and the issues boiled down to the question whether or not there is a valid offer from the appellants as offerors accepted by the respondents so as to constitute a valid agreement for consultancy services between them regarding the Staff Training Centre, Funtua, Kaduna State. The facts of the case, according to the evidence led in proof of the pleadings by both parties as stated in the judgment of Mohammed CJ, are as follows:-

“The 2nd defendant the Ministry of Works and Housing wrote a letter, dated 29th November 1976, Exhibit 1, to the Plaintiffs asking them to indicate their willingness “to take up the design work of the Staff Training Centre Funtua project as per Federal Military Government approved scale of fees.

Your acceptance or refusal should be communicated to this Ministry by 15th December, 1976″. The Plaintiffs wrote back on 14th December, 1976 communicating their willingness to undertake the design of the proposed training centre on the Federal Government approved scale of fees. This letter is in evidence as Exhibit 1A.

Thereafter, series of meetings were held between plaintiffs and representatives of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and the Principal of the proposed training centre. At the first of such meetings, the plaintiffs were given a document in which the details of the proposed centre and the number and type of house designs were shown. Plaintiffs’ witness said that that document formed the basis of their brief for the project. At the meetings there was a long discussion on details and some alterations were suggested by the defendant ministries.

The plaintiffs were asked to comment on these suggested alterations particularly as the defendants put the total cost of the project as N1.5m. As a result of this the plaintiffs sent Exhibits 2 and 2A. It is important to state here that the plaintiffs informed the defendants ministries in Exhibit 2 that the “project was severely underestimated at N1.5m”. Exhibit 2 is dated 7th March 1977.

The 2nd defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiffs, Exhibit 3 dated 27th July 1977 requesting them to “furnish this ministry with an estimate of the whole project including all the services and the involvement of your fees for pre and post contract services.” The plaintiffs regarded Exhibit 3 as the authority to go ahead and produce the designs. They wrote to 3rd defendant enclosing a copy of Exhibit 3 and promising to submit their designs and estimate by 19th September 1977. This letter is Exhibit 3A and it was copied to the 2nd defendant. Significantly, neither the second nor the 3rd defendant wrote back to the plaintiffs asking them not to submit any designs, or any designs beyond N1.5m having regard to plaintiffs’ letter Exhibit 2, and the agreed briefs, Exhibit 2A attached thereto.

By a letter dated 14th October 1977 and marked Exhibit 4A, the plaintiffs sent their designs to the 3rd defendant. The estimated cost of the designed project is given in Exhibit 4A as N6.3m. Neither the second nor the third defendant ministry got in touch with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs later visited the defendant ministries to find out the reason for the silence without any success.

Tired of waiting, the plaintiffs wrote Exhibit 5 dated 6th January 1978 to the 3rd defendants, copying the 2nd defendants complaining about the silence and about not having their approval and authorisation “to proceed with the working drawings” of the project.

They also submitted their bill for the work they had so far done as N55,915.90. On 29th March 1978, the 3rd defendant wrote to the plaintiffs Exhibit 6 stating, inter alia, that the “design did not suit our purposes and are therefore not acceptable. It is most regretted therefore that payment in respect of the said designs will not be made.”

Plaintiffs’ reaction to Exhibit 6 is Exhibit 7 which is dated 10th April, 1978 as follows:-
IDK.76/22/21L
The Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Establishments,
P.M.B. 2189,
Kaduna,
Kaduna State.
Dear Sir,

STAFF TRAINING CENTRE FUNTUA
We are in receipt of your letter S/BUIL.1/160 of 29th March, 1978. We consider it a very unfortunate letter because it seemed to ignore the fact that we had a responsibility to discharge and having discharged such responsibility, entirely within your terms of reference, we are entitled to payment.

We accepted the commission to design this project in December 1976. On 20th January 1977, by our letter 1DK.76/22/04L we asked for a clarification on the briefs to avoid any possible misunderstandings. The meeting was held on 17th February 1977 and the minutes were reported in our letter IDK.76/22/6L.