Corporate Affairs Commission V. Jude Elswitch Limited (2016) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Coram Hon. Justice S. C. Oriji, delivered on the 16th of December, 2011.

At the trial the respondent as plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:
a) The sum of Sixteen Million, Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy One Naira, Ninety kobo (N16, 568,771.90) only being balance from the (N29, 198,610.00) Twenty Nine Million, One Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Ten Naira contract sum for the installation of 1250 KVA generating set at the Defendant’s Head Office at Tigris Crescent, Maitama, Abuja, executed by the plaintiff for the defendant.
b) An order mandating the defendant to issue to the Plaintiff an audit certificate by the plaintiff if same may constitute a condition precedent to the payment of the said sum by the bureaucracy/procedure of the defendant.
c) Interest at 15% rate per month from 15th January 2009 when the plaintiff completed the job and the defendant promised to pay the balance until judgment is

1

delivered and thereafter, 10% from the date of judgment until full liquidation of the entire judgment sum.
d) The sum of N10m (Ten Million Naira) as general damages for breach of contract.
e) The cost of this actor estimated at N4,000,000.00

At the trial the appellant called a sole witness while the respondent called two witnesses who testified; at the conclusion of hearing judgment was entered for the respondent, dissatisfied the appellant appealed by a notice filed on the 30th of December, 2011 but amended and filed on the 17th of November, 2014 on three grounds shorn of their particulars as follows:
GROUND ONE:
The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself in fact when he held that:
“The evidence of the DW1 is that during his audit review based on line by line review of the contract, the balance to be paid to the plaintiff is N4,150,000.00. He referred to his internal memo to the Registrar General of the Defendant and stated that some of the figures placed on the items listed in the contract have zero value while some were over-invoiced. He tendered the payment voucher in favour of Afri-Med Nig. Ltd dated 26/01/2010, Exhibit K, to

2

support his assertion that the ATS (i.e. automatic change over panel) was purchased by the defendant and not by the plaintiff.”

But subsequently, went on to hold that:
“Also, in the internal memo, the DW1 stated that items 9-11 in the quotation ‘have earlier been paid for’. Item 9 is the automatic change over panel (ATS). At the locus in quo, the PW1 showed the Court the ATS he built and installed. The defendant did not lead any evidence to show that items 9- 11 have been paid for”

Thereby reaching a perverse decision that occasioned injustice to the Appellant.
GROUND TWO
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction over the matter.
GROUND THREE:
The Judgment is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

In the brief of argument settled by Olasoji O. Olowolafe Esq., of counsel to the appellant the following issues were formulated for the determination of this appeal:
ISSUE ONE:
Whether the learned trial judge rightly assumed jurisdiction over the case of the Respondent. (Ground 2)
ISSUE TWO:
Whether the learned trial judge’s decision that the

3

Appellant did not lead any evidence to show that items 9 – 11 have been paid for or has zero value was not perverse. (Ground 1 and 3)

In his brief settled by Smart Iheazor Esq., of counsel to the respondent the issues formulated for the appellant were adopted; this appeal will be determined on the issues as formulated for the appellant:
ISSUE ONE:
Whether the learned trial judge rightly assumed jurisdiction over the case of the Respondent.