Peugeot Automobile (Nig) Ltd & Anor V. Lawal Abubakar (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Kaduna, holden at Kaduna in Suit No.FHC/KD/CS/45/2011, delivered on 26/3/2013 by Hon. Justice Evelyn Anyadike, wherein the Claims of the Respondent against the Appellants jointly and severally for the sum of N207,872,41.00 were granted.

The Respondent’s Claims at the lower Court against the Appellants under the “Undefended List” vide the Statement of Claim dated 1/3/2011 and filed on 8/3/2011 contained at pages 16-20 of the records were as follows:

1. The sum of Two Hundred and Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy Two Naira, Forty One kobo (N207,872,41.00) and the benefit accrued on same from 1991 to date, being the sum deducted from the Plaintiffs salary by the In Defendant and credited into the second 2nd Defendant, then the National Provident Fund (N.P.F) the amount of which has not been paid to the Plaintiff and to which the Defendants have no defence.
2. 21% interest on the said sum of money and the benefit accrued on same till the date the judgment is delivered by the Court and interest of 10% from the date

1

of judgment till when it is finally liquidated, which the Defendants have no defence

3. The cost of this suit as may be assessed by this Court.

The facts of the case are that the Respondent worked in the 1st Appellant’s company from 1991 to 2007 when he disengaged his service. When in its service, he joined a Pension Contribution Scheme then called the National Provident Fund (NPF) and now known as NSITF by which a portion of his salaries were deducted and credited into the said Scheme.

The Respondent’s contribution on the whole amounted to N207,872,41.00 as per the statement of NSITF contributions sent to the Respondent which amount was paid into the Scheme ran by the 2nd Appellant. After demand of his money, he was offered only 25% of the total contributions, hence the institution of this suit at the trial Court. After being served, the Appellants did not file any intention to defend the suit and did not appear which consequently made judgment to be entered against them.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellants appealed vide a Notice of Appeal dated 18/6/2013 and filed on 19/6/2013, wherein 3 Grounds of Appeal were raised as herein

2

under reproduced without their particulars:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial Judge erred fundamentally in law when she proceeded and entered judgment against ,the Appellants when the writ before its service on the 2nd Appellant had expired and the service on both Appellants was fundamentally defective and incurably bad.

GROUND TWO: