Goodwill & Trust Investment Ltd. & Anor V. Witt & Bush Ltd (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

M. MUKHTAR, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which struck out the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant at the trial court are as follows, as per the statement of claim:-

“(i) The sum of N567,941.60k being contractual lease sum on rental of 250 KVA Rolls Royce power generating set for 85 days from 8th June, 1998 to 31st August, 1998 and banking charges of N1,275.00 on Defendants Dishonoured Cheques No. 303 and 304 dated 5th June, 1998 and 30th June, 1998 respectively.

(ii) Return of the plaintiffs’ 250k Rolls Royce power Generating set to the plaintiffs’ yard at 2/4 Sanusi Ibrahim Street Mile 12, Ketu Lagos State.

ALTERNATIVELY

Payment of the sum of N1.5 million naira being the contractual value of the said 250 KVA generating set.

(iii) Rental sum of N6,666.67k daily from 1st September, 1998 until the generator is returned to the plaintiffs, yard.

(iv) The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) as general damages for the Defendants breach of contract and detention of Plaintiffs’ power Generating.

(v) Interest in the sums claimed at 21% per annum from 1st September, 1998 until the total accrued sum is paid

and the generator returned.

(vi) The cost of this action.”

Pleadings were exchanged by the parties; to wit there was amendment, and a reply to the amended statement

of defence. Briefly put the plaintiffs leased a 250 KVA Roll Royce Power generating set to the defendant on 5th of June 1998 for an agreed fee of N200,000.00 for an initial period of 30 days. The terms of the lease was signed on 6th of June, and the defendants technicians tested it before it was removed to the site of a third party, Bristow Helicopters Ltd. on 6th June, 1988, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiffs repudiating the lease, and in fact stopped the cheque issued to the plaintiffs. The defendant refused to return the generator to the plaintiffs’ yard despite repeated demand.

The defendant denied most of the plaintiffs’ allegations stating that it stopped the cheques it issued to the 1st plaintiff because its client, a third party found the generator to be unserviceable and useless. The third party, Bristow Helicopters Limited complained that the generator failed to work, and the 1st plaintiff was informed of the malfunctioning. In spite of some changes in some parts of the generator, there were still problems; hence the defendant repudiated the contract on 15th of June, 1998. The defendant stated that before it repudiated the agreement, a 500 KVA generator was moved to its client’s site by Tate Industries to avoid further embarrassment the 1st plaintiff have caused it. The defendant denied that it was obliged to return the plaintiffs’ unserviceable generating set to its site having incurred financial loss as a result of the defaulting generating set hired. The defendant therefore counter-claimed as follows against the plaintiffs:-