Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation V. Sir. S.o. Odigie (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D), J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The matter, subject of the present appeal was commenced by Writ of Summons at the Federal High Court of the Benin Judicial Division. In his Statement of Claim filed following the Writ of Summons, the Respondent herein as Plaintiff crystallized his claims against the Appellant herein as Defendant in the following terms:

“(i) The sum of N565, 000.00 (Five Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Naira) being Plaintiff’s money in the custody of Defendant since 11th November 1998 as per annexures C and D herein.

(ii) 10% interest on the said sum with effect from 11th November 1998 till Judgment and 21% till the total sum of indebtedness is liquidated.”

(Underlining supplied).

The aforementioned Statement of Claim was of 16 paragraphs, the last of which contained the claims set out above. Initially, the Appellant neither filed a memorandum of appearance nor filed a Statement of Defence. Later, however, after the Respondent as Plaintiff had opened and closed his case, the Appellant, by motion dated 15/11/05 and filed same day, sought an order of court extending time within which to enter appearance and to deem the memorandum of appearance exhibited to the motion papers as properly filed and served.

After hearing argument in support of the motion and there being no opposition thereto, the court ordered as prayed and gave the Appellant 14 days to file and serve its Statement of Defence. This was on 2/12/05.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed its defence on 13/5/05 in which, in paragraph 13 thereof, it raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the Suit. On the same 13/5/05, Appellant also filed a motion for the issue of jurisdiction raised in the aforesaid paragraph 13 to be set down for hearing.

It does appear, from the records, that in the interim the court proceeded to take the evidence of the defence in the matter on 16/6/06 from which date further hearing was adjourned to 5th and 14th days of July 2006 without anything said about the motion challenging jurisdiction.

However, by motion dated 12/7/06 and filed 13/7/06, the Respondent sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim and to deem the amended Statement of Claim exhibited thereto as properly filed and served. The reliefs sought in the said motion were ordered as prayed by the trial court on 14/6/07. Thereafter and on the same day, the court proceeded with the case of the defence through the evidence of DW2 at the end of which it adjourned the matter to 13th July 2007, in his words:

“For the adoption of written addresses and Judgment.”

The court further ordered that written addresses of the counsel on both sides were to be exchanged “by the 6th of July, 2007. The Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s counsel) filed an address on 6/7/07 and a Supplementary address” on the 10/7/07. By a motion dated 13/7/07 and filed same day, the Respondent sought an order of court for extension of time within which to file its written address and an order deeming the address exhibited to the main motion as properly filed and served. It is worthy to note that in that address which was exhibited to the motion as Exhibit 1, the Appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction.

Against the foregoing background, the learned trial Judge proceeded to give Judgment in the Suit wherein he found for the Respondent and made the orders contained at pages 165 – 166 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellants have now appealed against that Judgment on six (6) grounds which without their particulars, read: