Mobil Oil Nigeria Limited Vs Nabsons Limited (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C. 

In these proceedings which commenced in the High Court of Cross River State holden at Calabar, the respondent as plaintiff, brought an action against the appellant, as defendant, with the following particulars:

“The plaintiff at all times materiallyin this case is a peddler of the defendant’s products. From this business relationship, the plaintiff maintains both product and deposit accounts with the defendant. The plaintiff apart from being entitled to make withdrawals from his deposit account was to be reimbursed on incidental expenses incurred by the plaintiff within and in the course of the business of the defendant.

Whereof the plaintiff after repeated demands for these entitlements and persistent failure and or neglect by the defendant to meet these demands now claims a total sum of N71,636.00 as follows:-

1.(a) N16,300.00 Deposit Account

(b) 1,200.00 Claim on vehicle maintenance of the defendant

(c) 4,136.00 Freight expenses

N50,000.00 General damages”

In paragraph three of the statement of claim the respondent averred that “the plaintiff at all material times is a dealer or peddler of products of the defendant, among other things” and in paragraph four the plaintiff company explained that “as a peddler and in line with the business practice of the defendant, the plaintiff maintains both product and deposit accounts with the defendant” and in paragraph five of the statement of claim the respondent explained some business transaction between the two parties in the following averment:

“In accordance with the business practice between the parties, the plaintiff is entitled to make withdrawals from the said deposit account and to be reimbursed on incidental expenses incurred by him within and in the course of the business of the defendant. At the trial the plaintiff will rely on the defendant’s letter No. EB 134 dated August 13, 1983 being a reply to the plaintiff’s letter requesting for the sum of N30,000.00 from the defendant to enable the plaintiff put a vehicle on the road in furtherance of its business commitments to the defendant.”

The appellant, in its Statement of Defence, denied knowing the respondent or ever having any contractual or other business relationship with the company as their dealer or peddler of petroleum products. The appellant further explained that it had a business relationship with one N.A. Bassey and that by an agreement dated 24/1/78 made between the appellant and the said N.A. Bassey the latter was appointed a peddler of the appellant’s kerosine product on terms and conditions set out in the said agreement. In paragraph 7 of the Statement of Defence the appellant disclosed one of the conditions of its agreement with N.A. Bassey, which reads:

“By paragraph 2(q) of the said agreement the said N.A. Bassey undertook and bound himself not to assign, change or in any way encumber the benefit of the agreement or part thereof.”

After pleadings were delivered and exchanged the trial opened on 11th February, 1986, before Udofia, J. Mr. Nsa Asuquo Bassey was the first witness for the plaintiff. During his testimony Mr. Bassey explained to the court how he transacted his business as a dealer and peddler in petroleum products with the appellant. It is pertinent to pause here and refer to paragraph 11 of the Statement of Defence. In that paragraph, the appellant pleaded that since the respondent was not a party to the kerosine peddling contract between the appellant and Mr. N.A. Bassey, Nabsons Limited (the respondent) had no locus standi to sue under the said agreement. The implication of paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim became quite clear when Mr. N.A. Bassey said in his evidence before the court, thus:

“When I became a member of the Cross River State House of Assembly, I wrote a letter to the defendant telling the defendant that I have transferred all my assets to Nabsons Limited which I had incorporated. ”