Senator (Mrs.) Eme Ufot Ekaete V. Union Bank Of Nigeria PLC (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondent was the plaintiff in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/869/2010, filed in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja wherein it claimed against the appellant, who was the defendant in the court below, as follows:

1. The sum of N552,239,218.92 (Five Hundred and Fifty-Two Million, Two Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighteen Naira, Ninety-Two Kobo) representing the debt balance in Messrs. Petlib Envi-Chem Services Limited’s account with the plaintiff as at 30th November, 2009, which was a result of credit facilities granted to Messrs. Petlib Envi-Chem Services Limited and on the personal guarantee of the defendant.
2. Interest at the rate of 27.5% per annum with monthly rests from 1st December, 2009 to the date of judgment and thereafter, interest at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated.
3. Cost of this action.”

The respondent’s suit was entered in the Undefended List. With leave of court, the appellant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the matter, in a reserved decision delivered on the 15th day of April, 2010 the learned trial judge A. S. Umar, J. entered summary judgment as follows:

1. The defendant is to pay the sum of N552,239,218.92 to the plaintiff being the balance of debt owed by Petlib Envi-Chem Services Ltd, and guaranteed by the defendant.
2. The defendant shall also pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated.
3. The cost of this suit is assessed at N50,000.00.”

This appeal is against the judgment of Umar, J. delivered on 15/04/2010. The appellant’s notice of appeal contains 4 grounds, reproduced below, without their particulars:

“GROUND 1

ERROR IN LAW:

The trial judge erred in law in entering judgment in favour of the respondent against the appellant under the undefended list in the light of several issues raised by the appellant that warranted the transfer of the matter to the general cause list, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND 2

ERROR IN LAW:

The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment in favour of the respondent against the appellant, who was merely a Guarantor of the loan facility purportedly owed to the respondent.

GROUND 3

ERROR IN LAW:

The learned trial judge erred in law in entering part judgment in favour of the respondent and transferring the rest of the respondent’s claims to the general cause list.”

GROUND 4