Rosehill Limited V. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. 

Rosehill Limited (the appellant) a Limited Liability Company, obtained various credit facilities from Guaranty Trust Bank Plc. (the respondent), a Commercial Bank. The facilities were secured with a legal mortgage, personal guarantee and indemnity. Unable to honour its payment obligations as and when due, the appellant sought for and obtained the restructure or elongation of the facilities, which as at 5th of May 2009 stood at N297 million naira. Notwithstanding the restructuring granted the appellant still continued in default resulting to a debit balance of N337,203,573.09 as at 30th of September, 2010. The respondent then served a letter of demand on the appellant. Not satisfied with the action of the respondent, the appellant through its counsel initiated a civil action against the respondent by filing suit KDH/KAD/983/2010 before the Kaduna State High Court of Justice (the lower Court) seeking for the reliefs enumerated on pages 1-2 of the record of appeal.

The respondent filed statement of defence and counter-claimed against the appellant wherein two (2)

1

other persons were joined as defendants being a Director of the appellant as Guarantor, and a Director of the Company as Indemnifier. The appellant did not deny being indebted to the respondent. What was in dispute was the quantum of the indebtedness. After taking of evidence, oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge of the lower Court dismissed the claims of the appellant for being unmeritorious. The counter-claim of the respondent however was granted for being meritorious (in a judgment delivered on the 27/2/14). Peeved and piqued by the decision of the lower Court, the appellant filed notice of appeal on the 28th of February 2014 which was subsequently amended and filed on the 15th of April, 2014.

The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 10th of April, 2015 but deemed on the 14th of April, 2015. The respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 7th of July 2015, but deemed on the 8th of July, 2015. A Reply brief was filed by the appellant on the 15th of September, 2015 but deemed on the 3rd of December, 2015. On pages 15 and 16 of the appellant’s brief of argument, four (4) issues have been culled from the Amended Notice and

2

grounds of appeal. The respondent, in its brief of argument on page 5, thereof distilled three (3) issues from the Amended Notice and grounds of appeal. It is trite, the purpose of formulation of issues for determination is to enable the parties to narrow the issues in controversy in the appeal for accuracy, clarity and brevity. An issue for determination must therefore be a proposition of law or of fact or both. An issue for determination in an appeal must be a concise statement of law or fact. It should not contain a conjecture or opinion. Ogbuanyinya v. Okudo (No. 2) (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 551, (2) 1 FWLR (Pt. 72) 1981; Dantata v. Mohammed (2000) FWLR (Pt. 21) 889. (2000) 78 LRCN 1422; Nteogwuiji v. Ikwu (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 569) 267; Sha v. Kwam (2000) FWLR (Pt. 11) 1798, (2000) 78 LRCN 1645.

An appellate Court is not under a regimental duty to take all the issues formulated by the parties in an appeal. An Appellate Court can, and should reformulate issues, if it is of the view that for the just determination of the appeal, the issues formulated by the parties, be reframed taking into consideration the issues contained in the briefs of argument filed by

3

the parties. See Latunde v. Lajinfi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) P.177; Ogunbiyi v. Ishola (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 94) P. 255 and Bankole v. Palu (1991) 8 (Pt. 211) P. 523. Issues 1 and 2 contained on pages 15 -16 of the appellants brief of argument and issues 1 and 2 in the respondents brief of argument are intertwined and or dovetailing such that one cannot be resolved without delving into the others. Issues 3 and 4 of the appellant and issue 3 of the respondent are interrelated and overlapping such that one cannot be resolved without delving into the other. In view of the foregoing, I consider it apt, to reframe or compress the issues for determination in the appeal to be thus:
Whether Exhibits 1A, 1B, 26, 27 and 30 are computer generated documents (statements of accounts) upon which the appellants claims and the respondent’s counter-claims are hinged, are admissible in law, if not, what is the effect on the respective claim of the appellant (as plaintiff) and the respondent (as counter-claimant)?

Daudu SAN, of learned senior counsel, referred to Exhibits 1A and 1B, 26, 27 and 30, and submitted that these documents being computer generated documents were

4

admitted in evidence in violation of the provisions of Section 84(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. That Exhibits 26, 27 and 30 shouldnt have been admitted there being no facts pleaded to have warranted their admission in evidence. Learned senior counsel further contended that the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, are mandatory. That computer-generated documents are not inadmissible ab initio, but the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act cannot be waived by parties nor can such document be admitted by consent without complying with same. The case of Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) P. 534 @ 577-578 cited to buttress the submissions supra. As to the general principles of law on the admissibility of documents which are ab initio inadmissible with or without objection, and the effect of admitting such documents in violation of the principles of law, learned SAN cited and relied on the cases of Oghoyone v. Oghoyone (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 543) P. 1884 @ 1861; and Degebiyi v. Pada (2002) FWLR (Pt.20) P.1778 @ 1788, to buttress his submission that Section 84 of the Evidence Act, being mandatory must be strictly complied with