Femi Soetan & Ors. V. Steliz Limited & Anor. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

DALHATU ADAMU (OFR), JCA, (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondents herein (Plaintiffs in the court below) by a Writ of Summons dated 7/2/2002 claimed against the Appellants (as Defendants) the following:

“1. A Declaration that the Defendants breached the Sales Agreement between them and the 1st Plaintiff for the importation, supply, installation and maintenance of a stainless automatic water filling, sealing and packaging machine system for the sum of N1.7 million.

2. The sum of N1.03 Million plus 15% interest per annum thereof with effect from 4th December 2000.
3. 10% interest per annum on the judgment sum until fully liquidated.
4. (4500,000.00 as general damages against the 1st Defendant for unlawful taking photographs of 2nd Plaintiff without her knowledge, consent or authority and an order of court impounding the photographs and negatives for destruction.”

On the above claim, the parties filed and exchanged their respective pleadings. The Defendants filed their Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim pursuant to the order of the trial court counterclaiming the following reliefs:

“(i) An Order of specific performance of the contract entered into between the Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the 4th – 12th December 2000 – directing the said 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs jointly and severally to pay the Defendants the sum of N700,000.00 (Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) being balance sum owed the Defendants, 21% interest from 4th December 2002 till judgment and 10% interest until judgment sum is fully liquidated.

(ii) The sum of N1 million Naira being general damages for the inconveniences and embarrassment caused the Defendants by the Plaintiffs.”

The Plaintiffs then filed a reply to the Defendants’ counter-claim above dated on 20/12/2002.

In proof of their claim the Plaintiffs called three witnesses and tendered five exhibits while the Defendants called two witnesses and tendered photographs and negatives which were referred in evidence and were so marked. With the pleadings completed, the parties filed and exchanged their final written addresses which were adopted on 16/4/2005. The court delivered its judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs on 22/5/2006.

Dissatisfied with the judgment the Defendants/Appellants appealed against it by their notice of appeal to this court. They applied by a motion dated 14/12/2007 and sought for a stay of execution of the judgment in this court which was granted conditionally on 24/1/2008 ordering the judgment sum of N1,130,000.00 to be deposited into an interest yielding account with First Bank Plc, Ilorin. The sum has since been deposited.

In accordance with the Rules of this court, the parties hereto have filed their respective briefs of arguments which they have adopted at the hearing of the appeal. The Appellants’ brief is dated 3/7/2009 and filed on the same date. In addition to the above brief the Appellants also filed an additional brief of arguments dated 9th day of February 2010 and filed on the same date. Lastly for the Appellants they also filed an Appellants’ reply to the Respondents’ brief dated and filed on 5/10/2009. This last brief was filed out of time but was regularized by the order of this court granted on 7/10/2009.

On the Respondents part, they filed their Respondents’ brief of arguments dated on 4th August, 2009 and filed on 5th August, 2009. They also filed the Respondents’ reply to the Appellants’ additional brief of arguments dated 18th February 2010 and filed on 19th February, 2010 (within time).

In the Appellants main brief of arguments, the Appellants formulated the following four (4) issues for determination of the appeal, viz:

“1. Whether the trial court was right to have gone outside the agreement between the parties?

2. Whether the trial court was right in awarding damages against the Defendants for taking the second Plaintiffs photograph without her consent when the pictures were not before the court.
3. Whether the trial court delivery of judgment one year after the parties adopted their final addresses did not occasion miscarriage of justice on the Appellants.
4. Whether the trial court was right in awarding judgment against the Appellants jointly and severally when the first and second Appellants are agents of the third Appellant?”

The above four issues formulated by the Appellants are also adopted by the Respondents.