Nasiru Ibrahim V. Abdulkadir Yahaya (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Before the High Court of Justice, Sokoto, Sokoto State sitting at Sokoto, ABDULKADIR YAHAYA brought an action against NASIRU IBRAHIM claiming as per Paragraph 26 of his Statement of Claim, the following Reliefs:

“WHEREOF, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the sum of N5,307,500.00 only being special damages arising from the sale of 172 (sic) dealer of women wrappers to the Defendant plus the cost of the action.

SPECIAL DAMAGES ? 172 dealer of wax

Cost – N16,340,000.00

Paid – N11,032,000.00

Balance- N5,307,500.00”

It may be proper from the outset to place the facts of this case in clear perspectives before dealing with the issues raised here on Appeal. The Respondent, at all material times to this Appeal was a Trader/Businessman dealing in all kinds of women wrappers with shops located at No.4, Gidan Dankure, Old Market Area within Sokoto Judicial Division. The Appellant as Defendant before the lower Court was equally a Trader/Businessman with shops within the Sokoto Judicial Division. At all times material to this Appeal the parties had a business

1

relationship under which the Appellant usually buys women wrappers from the Plaintiff on credit basis; that as at 2-3-2010, the Appellant?s indebtedness to the Respondent stood at N5,307,500.00 only. This amount of money owned were acknowledged by the Appellant vide a letter acknowledging his indebtedness to the Respondent on the 13-5-2011. In the said letter, the Appellant made promises to offset the sum owed within one month, but despite this promise, the Appellant failed, refused and neglected to make good his promise, thus prompting the institution of the action now on Appeal before this Court, at the lower Court.

The case of the Appellant who was Defendant at the lower Court was characterized by a series of denials. The first of which was that the Appellant did not engage in any trade with the Respondent involving the release of goods to the Appellant on credit basis, but rather that the goods were released to him (Appellant) to be distributed to his accredited and known customers on credit basis. It may perhaps, for the purposes of getting a clearer grasp of the side of the Appellant’s contention in this case be wise to reproduce

2

Paragraph 4 of the Appellant?s Statement of Defense where he averred as follows;

“4. In furtherance to the denial of Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant states that he does not buy goods from the Plaintiff on credit but the Plaintiff uses him as a front to distribute goods to Plaintiff’s accredited and known customers which the Plaintiff sells to the customers on credit basis and all the monies referred to by the Plaintiff were not indebtedness of the Defendant to the Plaintiff but were monies which the Defendant assisted the Plaintiff in recovering from the Plaintiff?s debtors.”