Homan Engineering Company Ltd v. Ugobecks Worldwide Solution Ltd & Ors (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in its Port Harcourt Judicial Division contained in a ruling delivered on the 7th of February, 2019 in appeal No. CA/PH/504/2016 dismissing the appeal of the appellants.

The respondents were the claimants in the High Court and they commenced the action leading up to this appeal against the appellant under the Undefended List Procedure by a writ of summons filed on the 8th of December, 2015. Their claims were for:

i. The sum of N32,921,720 being and representing the outstanding balance of the cost of chippings and hard core supplied and duly delivered by the respondents to the appellant at the appellant’s road construction site at Eberi Omuna and flow station Umuebule, both in Etche LGA, Rivers State.

ii. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 25% per annum from the 11th day of June, 2012 till date of judgment in this suit.

iii. Thereafter interest on the judgment debt at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of judgment till the judgment is liquidated.

The case of the respondents in the affidavit of facts in support of the claim under the Undefended List Procedure was that they had had business dealings with the appellant supplying materials ranging from mixed materials, chippings, granite, hard core, bitumen, etc to it and that the appellant made payments for the supplies within thirty days thereof. It was their case that the appellant usually made oral requests for supplies through its officers and that when deliveries are made the officers endorse the invoice of the first respondent in acknowledgement of receipt.

It was their case that they made supplies to the appellant on the 30th of April, 2012,11th of June, 2012 and 3rd of December, 2012 and the officers of the appellant duly endorsed the invoices in acknowledge-ment of receipt of the supplies. It was their case that the appellant stopped making payments within thirty days of supplies and that their several complaints in this regard were met with promises to pay for the supplies within a short period.

It was their case that whenever the appellant made payments, they were in trickles such that out of the sum of N33,791,720.00 outstanding as at 4th of October, 2013 on the supplies made, the appellant only paid the sum of N1,500,000.00, leaving a balance of N32,291,720.00 unpaid.

It was the case of the respondents that the appellant failed to pay the balance despite repeated demands and that this refusal to pay put them out of business and that the monies outstanding included bank loans with mounting interest rates.

It was their case that they caused their lawyers to write a letter of demand of payment to the appellant to no avail and that in March, 2013 one of their creditors petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and had the second respondent arrested.

It was their case that the second respondent informed the officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission that they were unable to repay their creditors because of the indebtedness of the appellant.

It was their case that the officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission wrote to the appellant to confirm the fact of the indebtedness and the appellant replied by a letter dated 8th of March, 2013 acknowledging that it was owing the respondents the sum of N37,436,520.00 as at March 2013. It was their case that the appellant had no defence to the action and that it was in the interest of justice to entered summary judgment in their favour.

The affidavit of facts was supported by copies the documents referred to therein and copies of the documents were attached thereto. The writ of summons together with the affidavit of facts and the attachments thereto were served on the appellant on the 17th of December, 2015 along with a hearing notice that the matter would be coming up for hearing before the trial court on the 18th of January, 2016. By the rules of the trial court, the appellant, if desirous of defending the action, was expected to file a notice of intention to defend together with an affidavit disclosing a defence not less than five days before the date fixed for hearing. The appellant filed no such process and/or processes.