Idris M. Tasiu V. Badamasi Adamu (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the final judgment of Kaduna State High Court in Suit No. KDH/KAD/426/2012, delivered on 18/12/12 by Hon. Justice Tanimu Zailani, wherein judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant as per his statement of claim, and 10% interest on the amount (N1.9 Million) from the date of the judgment until fully paid.

The Respondent, as Plaintiff, had, as per writ of summons, filed on 25/5/2012, claimed against the Defendant

“a total sum of N1.9 million, being outstanding balance from the money paid to the Defendant by the plaintiff which he has refused to refund, despite repeated demands”

(See pages 3 and 6 of the Records of Appeal)

The Respondent had filed a statement of claim and a motion for summary judgment with affidavits and exhibits, pursuant to the Rules of court. A brief facts of the case at the Lower Court shows that Appellant (who was the defendant at the trial court) had admitted owing a debt of N2 million naira to the Respondent, for which he signed an undertaking (Exhibits B) to pay within one month, by N500,000.00 installment per week.

The undertaking (or agreement) was signed on 29/7/11 by the parties in the presence of witnesses (Exhibit B was the English version of Exhibit A written in Hausa) and by Exhibit C and D (Exhibit D being English version), one Umar Mukhtar acknowledged collecting N100,000.00 from the Appellant, for the Respondent as part payment of the N2M naira debt, leaving outstanding balance of N1.9 Million.

He said he took the said N100,000.00 to Mallam Abdullahi, on 15/8/2011. Exhibit D was made on 19/5/11. By Exhibit E and F (F being the English version), the Appellant, again, undertook in the presence of his witness, Abdullahi Umar, to pay the remaining N1.9 million to the Respondent, within 6 months by N313,000.00 installment each month. Exhibit F was made on 3/10/2011.

At the trial, the Appellant filed a defence and affidavit (statement on oath) to say that he had some business transaction with Respondent relating to sale of consignment which the Respondent later came back to say was a loss to him and so used security men to force him to pay for the losses; that the said security men (in plain clothes) threatened to lock him up if he did not agree to pay for the losses incurred by the Respondent; that he was therefore forced to pay N100,000.00 to Umar, the agent of the Respondent on 19/8/2011, as per Exhibit D; that thereafter, subsequent threats were directed at him which made him to further undertake to pay; and when he remained adamant the Respondent and his agents instigated the Police to arrest and detain him from 25/1/12 to 26/1/12, when a further undertaking to pay was extracted from him. He then filed a suit to enforce his fundamental rights, because of that, in suit No. KDH/KAD/159/202 (sic) which was adjudged in his favour and he was awarded N100,000.00 (Hundred Thousand Naira) in damages, against the Police.

Of course, the trial Court was not impressed by the story of the Appellant and so in its short of Ruling on page 41 of the Records of Appeal said:

“… I have considered the averments and arguments 1 (sic) support of the motion as against the averments in the statement of defence. I have also considered the provisions of Court Order 11 of the Rulers of Court, 2007. And I am of the considered view and finding that there is merit in the motion. The exhibits attached to the motion established the defendant’s liability in this case. They are acknowledgements of the liability, in the Defendant’s hand writing, other defence offered by the defendant are not in any way meritorious. They are simple after thought. In fact the defendant has not disclaimed the exhibits of the motion…”

Appellant’s notice of Appeal was filed on 27/12/12 where-in he disclosed 2 grounds of appeal. See pages 42 to 44 of the Records of Appeal, Appellant filed his brief of argument on 7/3/13 and distilled two issues for determination, as follow:

“1. Whether on the overwhelming evidence before the trial court, the motion on Notice brought under Order 11 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 has merit at all.

2. Whether the exhibits attached (the undertaking) to the motion on Notice for summary judgment extracted from the Appellant under duress without more does establish the Appellant’s liability to the Respondent to entitle him to judgment as held by the trial court.”

The Respondent filed his Brief on 8/4/13 and distilled a sole issue for determination, namely: