Bichi Investment Nigeri Limited & Ors V. Jgb Ventures & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondents in this appeal, as Plaintiffs before the lower Court, by their Statement of Claim dated 25th August 2009, sought against the Appellants, a refund of N3,038,781.00 (Three Million, Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty One Naira) being the advance payment made to the Appellants, representing 12% of the failed contract sum for the rural electrification of some towns in Kano State. This was followed by a Motion for Summary Judgment.

In response to these processes, the Appellants, as Defendants, entered appearance, filed a Statement of Defence and also a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The lower Court, in a considered ruling delivered by Zailani J (as he then was), dismissed the Preliminary Objection as lacking in merit. At the hearing of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Appellant indicated no opposition thereto, in consequence of which judgment was entered in favour of the Respondents as prayed. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 22/3/2011 against the judgment of the said Court delivered on the 7th March 2011.

1

Briefs of Argument were filed and exchanged. In the Appellants Brief of Arguments, settled by Anarya’a Aishatu Fali and filed on 9/12/14 but deemed properly filed on 9/3/15 pursuant to an application for extension of time, the following were stated by counsel to be the issues for determination:

1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he delivered ruling in favour of the Respondents in a suit that is patently statute barred.

2) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he delivered ruling in favour of the Respondents on the basis of incompetent process.

3) The decision of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence.

The Respondents’ counsel, Chief J. A. Ajayi, in the Respondents’ Brief of Arguments dated 7/07/15 and filed on 13/7/15, formulated the following issues for determination:

1) Whether having regards to the issues raised and addressed before the lower trial Court, to which rulings were delivered this Hon. Court can be called upon to re-open same argument without leave, on the absence of appeal on the interlocutory decision of the lower Court on same.

2) Having regards to the Plaintiffs respondents’ claim

2

before the lower trial Court, whether cause of action arose when the money for the procurement of the contract was paid in 2003 or when it became impossible, to found for the application of Kaduna State Limitation Law 1991.

3) Whether this Hon. Court can be persuaded to set aside or over rule consent Judgment in a monetary case, conceded to by the Appellants in the absence of any fraud, perversion of Justice or misrepresentation of facts before the Court.