Samba Petroleum Company Limited & Anor V. First City Monument Bank (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Kaduna State High Court in suit No. KDH/KAD/314/91, delivered by Hon. Justice H.N. Donli on 30/3/1998.

The Respondent who was the plaintiff at the High Court (by then International Merchant Bank Ltd.), had claimed the sum of N856, 221.47, with 34.5% interest per annum against the Appellants (by then Defendants), from 1st Oct. 1992, until judgment, and thereafter 10%, per annum, until the judgment debt is liquidated. That was suit No. KDH/KAD/301/92.

The Appellants had earlier sued the Respondent for a declaration that the Respondent had breached and frustrated an agreement, frustrated repayment, bloated and misrepresented account. They sought perpetual injunction and over N23 Million as damages for lose of profit and breach of agreement. That was suit no. KDH/KAD/314/91.

The two suits were consolidated on 4/8/93 under KDH/KAD/314/91, on Appellants’ application, filed on 27/7/93. Consequently and surprisingly (as the Appellants should have reminded the plaintiffs) the Respondent became the plaintiff and the Appellants the Defendants in the said suit, KDH/KAD/314/91, during the trial the Respondent applied to amend its statement of claim and its defence to the Counter claim (as per pages 52 – 62 of the Records).

In the judgment, the Court below found that the Respondent did not breach the agreement between it and the Appellants and that it had proved its (Respondent’s) claim. And that Appellant did not prove the counter-claim.

Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal as per pages 307 to 309 of the Records of Appeal, They later filed amended Notice of Appeal on 27/5/13, which was deemed duly filed on 4/6/13 – the day the appeal was heard by this Court. In the Amended Notice of Appeal, Appellants disclosed 5 grounds of appeal, as follows:

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. ERROR OF LAW

The learned trial judge erred in law in entertaining the plaintiff/Respondent’s claims.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

a. The plaintiff/Respondent did not pay any filing fees before purportedly instituting this case.

b. Payment of filing fees for a writ of summons is a condition precedent to adjudication,

c. Even after amendment of the statement of claim, where the figure originally claimed was increased, the plaintiff/Respondent refused to pay for the enhanced figure.

d. By the High Court of Kaduna State (civil procedure) rules 1987 an amendment is void if not made within 14 days of grant.