Bico Nigeria Limited & Anor V. Electronic Connections Limite (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A. 

This appeal is against the judgment of Kano State High Court delivered on 25/6/14 in suit No. K/372/2013 which the Respondent herein instituted against the Appellants through the writ of Summons dated 13th November, 2013 for the claim endorsed thereon as follows:
”1. The sum of N5,500,000.00 (Five Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being the balance of the compensation agreed upon and due to the plaintiff as per the Settlement Agreement dated 20th March, 2013 which the defendants failed or refused to pay.
2. The plaintiff claims interest on the said N5,500,000,00 at 10% per annum Court rate from the date of judgment until final liquidation of the judgment debt by the defendants.”

?The writ was placed for hearing under the Undefended list and upon service on the defendants, they filed a Notice of intention to defend the action together with a supporting affidavit of 14 paragraphs. The learned trial judge found no defence on merit raised in the Notice of intention to defend and the affidavit and the action was heard under the Undefended list. In the judgment delivered on 25/6/14

1

aforesaid, the trial Court granted the claim of the Respondent and entered judgment in his favour for the sum of N5,500,000.00 being the balance of the compensation agreed upon and due to the plaintiff under the settlement agreement dated 20th March, 2013, and 10% interest on the judgment sum till final liquidation of the judgment debt.

?The facts relied upon by the Respondent as set out in the depositions in the affidavit of Sunday Anwo, Litigation Secretary in the firm of O.E.B. Offiong & Co. Legal Practitioners & Notaries Public are that in September, 2012, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 11th September, 2012 to partner for the bidding and execution of a contract for the installation of Computer workstation, services, Laptops and other Internet Technology Materials with the Nigerian Ports Authority, wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff shall provide the technical skill/knowhow for the successful execution of the contract; the plaintiff duly performed his own part of the agreement and the contract was awarded by the Nigerian Ports Authority to the parties but the Defendants excluded the plaintiff

2

and started to work with another technical partner. When the plaintiff confronted the defendants on this development, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 20th March, 2013 by which the 1st defendant agreed to pay N7,500,000.00 to the plaintiff within a period of three months from 20th march, 2013 by N2,000,000.00 and N5,500,000.00 respectively but the 1st defendant paid only N2,000,000.00 and refused to pay the remaining amount of N5,500,000.00 while the breach of the settlement Agreement by the 1st defendant was instigated by the 2nd defendant as its Managing Director. The deponent believed that the defendants had no defence to the action of the plaintiff. Four documents were attached to the affidavit as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4.

?The defendants on the other hand stated in the affidavit in support of their notice of intention to defend deposed to by Abubakar Bichi, the 2nd defendant in the action that although there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties in September, 2012, the plaintiff later worked against the interest of the 1st defendant by bidding for the same contract for which he was to be a technical partner and

3

attempted to snatch the contract. It was further deposed that the claim of the plaintiff was fraudulent, gold digging and exploitative and not backed by any consideration as no technical services had been rendered worth the two million naira Paid.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Kano State aforesaid, the defendants commenced the instant appeal through the Notice of Appeal dated 6th August, 2014 with three grounds of appeal. The Appellant with the leave of this Court amended the Notice of Appeal and by the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 27/1/16, the grounds were increased to four, and in prosecution of the appeal, the Appellant’s Brief filed was subsequently amended by the order of this Court and the Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument prepared by Murtala Musa Esq. was filed on 27/1/16 but deemed properly filed on 1/1/16, while the Amended Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by Gideon Uzu Esq. was filed on 15/2/16. At the hearing of the appeal on 12/4/16, the parties were represented by their learned Counsel. While M.H. Modibbo Esq. for the Appellants adopted the Appellants’ Brief and urged the Court to allow the appeal, G.O.

4

Uzu Esq. for the Respondent also adopted the Respondent’s Brief and urged that the appeal be dismissed based on the argument in the Respondent’s Brief.