Union Bank of Nigeria Plc V. Musheed Dawodu (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

In suit No. LD/1212/87 at the Lagos High Court, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) brought a suit against the respondent (hereinafter called the defendant) claiming as follows:-

(a) The sum of N109,725.55 being the balance payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at the close of business on 1/09/87 due on the loan/overdraft facilities extended to the defendant by the plaintiff at the defendant’s request.

(b) Interest at the rate of 21% per annum at monthly rate on the sum of N109,725.55 from 1/09/87 to the date of  judgment and thereafter at 6% per annum from date of judgment until the whole debt is liquidated plus costs thereof.

The plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. The defendant filed a statement of defence and counter-claim. The counter-claim was stated thus:-

(a) For the sum of N160,821.42. (b) An account of what number of shares if any have been received by way of scripts or bonds in respect of the share certificates deposited with the plaintiff for and on account of the defendant.

(c) An account of what dividends since 1980, if any have been received by the plaintiff in respect of those certificates for and on behalf of the defendant.  (d) A return to the defendant of the said share certificates plus additions and dividends found due. (e) Further interest on the sum of (a) at the current banking rate from February, 1988 until final disposition of this case.

The plaintiff on 29-4-88 filed a process captioned ‘Reply to the defendant’s statement of defence and counter-claim.’ The suit was heard by Adeniji, J. The plaintiff called one witness. The defendant testified. He called one witness. In the judgment delivered on 27-2-97, plaintiff’s case was dismissed. The defendant’s counter- claim for N160,821.42 was granted with interest as claimed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court. It brought an appeal against it on three grounds of appeal. Although the appellant raised three grounds of appeal, it in its brief strangely raised five issues for determination, namely:

1.Whether or not the trial Judge was right to hold that the plaintiff/appellant did not file a reply/defence in reaction to the defendant/respondent’s statement of defence/counter-claim and had thus accordingly admitted the counter-claim of the defendant/respondent?.

2.Whether or not it was proper and right for the learned trial Judge to raise suo motu a fundamental point or issue not raised by any of the parties and proceeded to determine same in the final judgment without hearing parties on same?. 3. Whether or not the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge in determining the suit ensured a fair hearing to the parties?. 4. Whether or not the learned trial Judge was right in holding that exhibit C does not amount to an admission  of debt known to law?. 5. Whether or not the trial court properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the trial and made proper findings and inference there from in reaching its judgment in the suit?.

The respondent’s issues are these:-

1.Whether or not the learned trial Judge on the pleadings and evidence was right in giving judgment for the defendant/respondent on his counter-claim in view of the state of the pleadings and evidence?.

2. Whether exhibit C can be regarded as an admission of the plaintiff/appellant’s claim in this suit?.
3. Whether or not the judgment of the court is not supported by evidence?.

As I observed earlier, the appellant formulated five issues out of its three grounds of appeal. This is because the appellant fragmented the only issue that could possibly have arisen from the first ground of appeal into three. The approach I adopt is to treat appellant’s issues one, two and three as one issue. When treated like that, a meeting point is reached between the appellant’s and respondent’s issues. The issues formulated by the respondent I must say are apt and appropriate.