Chairman Moro Local Government & Ors V. Adelodun Lawal & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.

This appeal is predicated on the Judgment of Honourable Justice J. F. Gbadeyan of the Kwara State High Court, Ilorin delivered on 30th June, 2005.

The Respondents, as Plaintiffs, filed a suit under the “Undefended List” Procedure against the Defendants, now Appellants, on the 28th April, 2005. Therein they claimed the total sum of N25, 767,174.81k plus 10% of the total sum until the Judgment sum is finally liquidated. The principal sum claimed was said to represent the salaries of the Respondents from June, 1999 to November, 2000, May 2001 to December 2001 and January 2002 to May 2002. Approved furniture allowances and severance gratuities were also included in this claim.

The Writ of Summons containing the Plaintiffs’ claim was supported by an affidavit and exhibits. Upon being served the summons, the Appellants filed a Notice of intention to defend the suit accompanied by an affidavit and supported by exhibits.

The trial Court heard the matter on the Undefended List and took the arguments from both learned Counsel to the Appellants (then defendants) and to the Respondents (then Plaintiffs). In his ruling, delivered on 30th, June, 2005, the learned trial Judge, Gbadeyan, J. stated in effect that no defence on the merit had been disclosed to warrant a transfer of the suit to the General Cause List for hearing. In his own words, he stated this at Page 71 of the printed record thus:

“The authorities are clearly in support of the defendant making credible allegations amounting to a defence on the merit to cause or matter to be transferred to the general cause list from the undefended cause list. It is never granted upon the making of a wild allegation or mere barren assertions or half-hearted defence. See Muobike V. Nwigwe Supra at 635.”

He thereupon proceeded to enter Judgment for the Respondents/Plaintiffs as per the Writ of Summons:

Dissatisfied with this Judgment, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing two Grounds of appeal and Additional Grounds of Appeal consisting of five Grounds. The Grounds, without their particulars, complain thus:

Original Grounds.

1. The Judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.
2. The Learned trial Judge erred in law and wrongly exercised his jurisdiction in entertaining the Respondent’s case which was/is clearly statute barred.

Additional Grounds.

1. The Learned trial Judge erred in law in giving judgment to the Respondents under the Undefended List when the affidavit in support of the Appellant’s Notice of Intention to defend raised triable issues amounting to a defence on the merit.
2. The Learned trial Judge erred in law and wrongly placed on the Appellants a much higher burden than required by Order 23 Rule 3 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 1989 when he held that:

“There are several allegations made by the defence.

They are mere allegations.”

3. The Learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to pronounce on the issue of (sic) agricultural loan taken by the Respondents from the Appellant and later written off which issue was duly canvassed before him.
4. The Learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts when he held that:

“There is no iota of documentary evidence that a total of the loan and overdraft facilities of N27 Million applied for were actually approved and granted.”

5. The Learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself when he held that there is no evidence that the Schedule of payment was honoured.

In pursuance of the Rules of this Court, both parties filed their Briefs of Argument. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 15th August, 2005 was filed on 15th September, 2005. On receipt of the Respondent’s Brief of argument, they filed a Reply Brief dated 7th November, 2005 and filed on 8th November, 2005. Both Briefs of argument were fully adopted and relied upon by Mr. Obi Okwusogu, learned Counsel for the Appellants on the 7th November, 2006. In addition, learned Counsel filed a list of additional authorities which contains four authorities. These he again relied upon, particularly Nos 1, 3 and 4 on the list. He therefore urged the Court to allow the appeal.