Mothercat Nigeria Limited V. Registered Trustees Of The Full Gospel Assembly Nigeria (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondents in this appeal [as plaintiffs] took out a Writ of Summons against the appellants herein [as defendants] at the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, holden at Uyo. They claimed the following reliefs from the appellants as defendants:

(a) The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages for the damage to the respondents’ building at Nwaniba Road, Nsukara Offot, Uyo, and

(b) An order directing the appellant to immediately construct suitable and fitting exit for body of water out of the building premises.

The matter went to trial on the settled pleadings. At the conclusion of the case, the court [hereinafter referred to as “the lower court”] found for the plaintiffs. This appeal is the expression of the defendants/appellants’ dissatisfaction with the outcome of the proceedings. From their grounds of appeal, the appellants distilled the following issues for the determination of their appeal. They framed the said issues thus:

i. Whether from the Statement of Defence, the defendant/appellant did not challenge the legal status of the plaintiff to necessitate the plaintiff proving same?

ii. Whether in the execution of the contract in issue, the defendant/appellant was an agent of or an independent contractor to the Akwa Ibom State Government (a disclosed principal)?

iii. Whether from acceptable evidence on record, the plaintiff/respondent had proved her case to entitle her to general damages of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) against the defendant?

iv. Whether from the proceedings, evidence and judgment on record, the learned trial judge did not substitute the evidence before the court with his own observations at the locus to give judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and if he did, whether that was proper in law?

On their part, the respondent formulated the same issues in these terms:

(i) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is (sic) an independent contractor.

(ii) Whether the decision suo motu by the court to visit the locus in quo and the visit to the locus in quo occasioned miscarriage of justice.

(iii) Whether the general traverse in the opening paragraph of the Appellant’s statement of Defence was sufficient to put the Respondent on notice to prove its legal status.

(iv) Whether the totality of the evidence adduced by the respondent was sufficient to entitle them to their claims.