Alhaji Shehu Ashaka v. Samson Chidi Nwachukwu (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

ADAMU JAURO, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division which allowed appellant’s appeal in part and partially affirmed the judgment of the Plateau State High Court of Justice, which had granted all the reliefs sought by the respondent as plaintiff.

The respondent commenced the action leading to this appeal before the High Court of Plateau State via a writ of summons and an affidavit in support of the claims. He filed a motion ex parte for the suit to be placed under the Undefended List. The following were the claims endorsed on the writ:

“The plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of N2,000,000.00 being the balance due to the plaintiff from the defendant on a road contract which the plaintiff executed at NDLEA office at Laminga for the defendant and which sum defendant despite repeated demands has failed to pay.

And plaintiff claims interest at the rate of 25% from the 20th July, 2001 until judgment and thereafter at 10% per annum until the entire sum is liquidated.”

The appellant responded by filing a notice of Intention to defend and an affidavit in support thereof. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the respondent consented that the matter be transferred to the general cause list and the suit was so transferred. It was however heard without the filing of pleadings pursuant to order 23 rule 3 of the rules of court. At the hearing of the suit, the respondent called four witnesses as PW1 – PW4, while the appellant testified alone for himself as DW1.

The case of the respondent as plaintiff, led through his witnesses, was that the appellant was awarded a contract by the Plateau State Government for the construction of a road at NDLEA, Jos which he subcontracted to the respondent for the sum of N2.5 million.

The appellant later gave additional work to the respondent for the sum of N400,000 such that the total bill went up to N2.9 million, out of which only N900,000.00 was paid to him, leaving the sum of N2 million outstanding. It was also stated that the respondent had taken a loan of N1 million from Sawlid Investment Ltd at an interest rate of 24% per annum to finance the project.

On the part of the appellant, his case was that he had a road contract at Busa Buji Street, Jos and at NDLEA in Jos, so the respondent and Sani (PW3) approached him that they had gravel and bitumen to supply to him. He stated that respondent supplied sand, gravel and bitumen worth N900,000.00 to him and he had fully paid him for the supplies.

At the close of trial and after the addresses of counsel, the trial court delivered its judgment wherein it granted the reliefs sought by the respondent. The court ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent, the sum of N2 million and awarded interest at the rate of 22% per annum from July, 2001 till the date of the judgment and post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The appellant’s appeal to the court below was allowed in part. The court held that there was no basis for the award of 22% pre-judgment interest and set aside the same.

The appellant was discontented by the judgment of the lower court, hence this appeal. The notice of appeal by which the appeal was commenced has been amended pursuant to an order of this court.

The appeal was heard on 12th December, 2023. At the hearing of the appeal, M. Y. Danung, Esq. for the appellant adopted the appellant’s amended brief and reply brief and urged the court to allow the appeal. In urging the court to dismiss the appeal, learned counsel O.A. Alao, Esq. adopted the respondent’s amended brief settled by Edwin O. Okoro, Esq.

Appellant’s counsel submitted the following issues for determination in his brief of argument, which issues were adopted by learned respondent’s counsel:

“i. Having regard to the fact that the process commencing this action was not signed by a legal practitioner known to law, whether the whole proceeding, including the judgment of the lower court, is not a nullity (Grounds 7 and 8).