Klifco Nigeria Limited V. Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMAGE, J.C.A. 

In this appeal, the defendant in the court below seeks an order to set aside the judgment of the Federal High court sitting in Port Harcourt, Coram S. O. Ojuntalayo. The judgment was delivered on 22nd November, 1991. The appellant filed four grounds of appeal and formulated the following four issues:

“(1) Was the debt subject matter of the suit statute-barred and did the pleadings of the defendant/appellant cover the situation?

(2) Was exhibit “J” a letter of the defendant/appellant an admission of a stale debt enough to revive the debt?

(3) Was exhibit “L”, of any probative value in this case?

(4) Was the learned trial Judge right in his interpretation of the probative value and effect of exhibit “C-C1″ and HM-M1”?’

The respondent who was the plaintiff in the court below formulated the following issues:

“(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that appellant had not adequately pleaded the defence of limitation of action.

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the debt had been revived by exhibit “J” assuming (but not accepting) that limitation of action had been sufficiently pleaded by appellant.

(3) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have admitted exhibit “L” into evidence due regard given to section 38 of the National Providence Fund Act, Cap. 273, Laws of Federation, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as NPF Act, 1990) and the Evidence Act, Cap. 112, Laws of the Federation, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as Evidence Act, 1990).

(4) Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in the interpretation placed on exhibits “C-CI” and “M-Ml” considering the pleadings and evidence before the court.”

The facts of the case in the court below are as follows:

“The respondents as plaintiffs by a writ of summons filed in the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt claimed from the defendant, now appellant; ‘the sum of N38,453.13 which the plaintiff say represent arrears of contribution and interest on demand notes, sent to the defendant on sums of money which the defendant as employers of labour, within the meaning of the NPF Act. 1961; failed and still fails to pay despite repeated demands as per particulars of claim.”

The particulars of claim supplied by the plaintiff and his evidence tendered as contained in exhibits “C-C1” show that the sum claimed covers a period of January, 1980 and December, 1988. Exhibit “CC1” was admitted in evidence, and it is upon this that the plaintiff’s claim was determined in the court below. The trial court rejected and did not consider exhibit “M-M1”, which was subsequently tendered to show a period of January, 1979 – March, 1984.