Gilat Telecoms Limited, Israel & Ors v. G-net Comm. Ventures Limited & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, holden at Abuja delivered on the 10th November, 2020 by Garba, J. (as he then was).

The appellants took out an action against the respondents at the lower court wherein they sought the following reliefs:

a. The sum of $29,040.30 (Twenty nine thousand, forty nine United States dollars, thirty cents) being the amount owed the claimants by the defendants.

b. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 25% per annum or at the rate prevailing bank rate (whichever is higher) from the 1st of February, 2017 till the day judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 21% till the final liquidation of the judgment debt.

c. The cost of this action as assessed by this honourable court.

On being served, the respondents joined issues with the appellant on the pleadings and via counter-affidavit to the application for summary judgment upon which the lower court on finding that issues were joined, decided on a full trial.

At the trial the sole witness for the appellants was a counsel from the firm of their solicitors while the 2nd respondent testified for the respondents.

After taking the final addresses of the respective counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment wherein the evidence of the sole witness of the appellant was found inadmissible and was accordingly expunged with fatal consequences for the appellants case which was found unmeritorious and dismissed.

Dissatisfied, the appellants invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court via a notice of appeal filed on the 14th January, 2021 containing six grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Esezobor adopted the appellants brief filed on the 18th June, 2021 but deemed properly filed and served on the 26th June, 2024 as the arguments of the appellants in this appeal while Dr. Otitoju adopted the respondents brief filed on the 11th August, 2021 but equally deemed properly filed and served on the 26th June, 2024 as the arguments of the respondents in contesting the appeal.

The appellants distilled five issues from the six grounds of appeal thus:

i. Whether the lower court was right to have held that counsel is not competent to give evidence in a case he/she appears for a party as counsel. (Distilled from ground 1 of the notice of appeal).

ii. Whether the lower court was right to have held that the evidence of the sole witness of the appellants who is a counsel in the matter amounts to hearsay evidence and not within the purview of the exception to hearsay evidence, and therefore inadmissible in law. (Distilled from ground 2 of the notice of appeal).