Hadejia Jama’are River Basin Development Authority V. Chimande Nigeria Limited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondent, as plaintiff, commenced the action in the lower Court against the Appellant, as defendant, and its claims were for:

i. The sum of N7,952,589.27 being the exact amount which the Appellant admitted owing the Respondent as per Exhibits MIE and MIH attached to the affidavit in support of the writ of summons.

ii. Interest on the said sum at bank rate of 23% from the 1st of May 2008 to the date of judgment and thereafter at the Court rate of 10% until final liquidation of the whole amount.

iii. The cost of instituting and prosecuting this suit the its logical conclusion, which is N200,000.00.

The suit was placed under the Undefended List by an order of Court made on the 18th of April, 2012 by Honorable Justice Abdullahi Mahmoud Bayero and it was listed as Suit No K/141/2012 and the matter was listed for hearing on the 15th of May, 2012.

The records show that the Appellant filed a notice of intention to defend dated the 7th of May, 2012 and this was accompanied by an affidavit of facts. The lower Court took arguments on the

matter and in a considered judgment delivered on the 18th of June, 2012, it found in favour of the Respondent and it entered judgment in the following term:

i. The Appellant is hereby ordered to pay to the Respondent the sum of N7,952,589.27 being the amount owed by the Appellant from the contract of drilling One No motorized borehole at Unguwar Gari, Kibiya Local Government, Kano State which amount remains unpaid till date despite repeated demands.

ii. Interest at 23% bank rate is here imposed on the judgment sum of N7,952,589.27 from 1st of May, 2008 till today 18th?of June, 2012 and thereafter at 10%?Court rate until final liquidation of the whole judgment sum.

iii. The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent N200,000.00 as cost of instituting and prosecuting this suit.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and it caused its Counsel to file a notice of appeal dated the 28th of August, 2012 and the notice of appeal contained two grounds of appeal. In arguing the appeal before this Court, Counsel to the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 21st of October, 2013 on the 1st of November, 2013 while the brief of

arguments of the Respondent dated the 5th of May, 2015 was filed on the 27th of May, 2015 and the brief of arguments was deemed properly filed by this Court on the 1st of June, 2015. At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments contained in their respective brief of arguments.

Counsel to the Appellant formulated two issues for determination in this appeal and these were: