United Bank For Africa Plc v. Cross River Board Of Inland Revenue (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Cross River State delivered on 29th September, 2017 entering judgment in favour of the claimant.

The claimant commenced a civil action on 21st November, 2016 against the defendant claiming the recovery of public revenue in the sum of N20,218,185.72 (Twenty million, two hundred and eighteen thousand one hundred and eighty-five Naira, seventy-two Kobo) being the balance of local PAYE taxes due in 2012 from trans-ocean support services through her bank, Citibank Nigeria Limited in favour of Cross River State Government.

Upon being served with the originating summons, the defendant filed a motion on notice seeking inter alia, an order striking out her name, on the ground that she is an agent of a disclosed principal and thus cannot be held liable under the circumstances.

In response, the claimant filed a counter affidavit and documentary exhibits marked A-G2 respectively. After hearing parties on their respective affidavits, learned trial Judge found that the defendant acted more as an independent contractor, on page 75 of the record as follows:

On the issue of non-remittance of the balance of the total sum of money transferred to UBA Plc from Citibank Nigeria limited on the instruction of trans-ocean support Service Limited in favour of Cross River State Government as stated earlier that the UBA is an independent contractor who accordingly acknowledged the receipt of the sum of N55,925,082.69 (Fifty-five million, nine hundred and twenty-five thousand, eighty-two naira, sixty-nine Kobo) from Citibank but instead remitted the sum of N35,706,867.97 (Thirty-five million, seven hundred and six thousand, eight hundred and sixty-seven naira, ninety-seven kobo) to the client`s account without properly accounting for the remaining balance sum of N20,218,185.72 (Twenty million, two hundred and eighteen thousand, one hundred and eighty-five naira, seventy-two kobo) which the state is asking UBA to pay.

His lordship concluded on pages 77 – 78 of the record thus:

In my view, there is no reason to belabour the issues raised by the parties in this case. I am in agreement with the claimant that the payment of the balance of N20,218,185.72 (Twenty million, two hundred and eighteen thousand, one hundred and eighty-five Naira, seventy-two Kobo) both because the claim was properly pleaded and because exhibits A, B, B2, and C relied on as establishing the quantum of such claim, because the figure mentioned therein is in tandem with what the claimant/respondent claimed.

I placed more probative value on exhibits A, B, B2, and C as they have consistently stood the weight of evidence attached to them thereon and I will however attach no evidential value on evidence adduced by the defendant/applicant and thus the defendant/applicant not being able to vary the claims of the claimant is liable to pay the balance of N20,218,185.72 (Twenty million, two hundred and eighteen thousand, one hundred and eighty-five Naira, seventy-two kobo) as claimed by the claimant/respondent and I so hold.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the appellant appealed to this court vide a notice of appeal filed on 11/10/2017. And by leave of this court granted on 4/5/2013 appellant amended its notice of appeal which contains two grounds of appeal. Distilled from the said amended notice of appeal, appellant formulated the following two issues for consideration by this court:

I. Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in law when in his judgment he failed to give effect to the terms of the contract made between the appellant and her disclosed principal, namely Transocean Support Services Nigeria Limited as shown in exhibit A annexed to the affidavit to show cause and to the motion for striking out?

II. Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in law when he held that the appellant, who is an agent of a disclosed principal is liable for the indebtedness of its disclosed principal to the respondent?

The learned counsel for the respondent adopts the two issues formulated by the appellant.

This appeal came up for hearing on 4/5/2023 and learned counsel for the appellant D. O. Uruakpa, Esq. adopted the appellant’s brief which was filed on 4/6/2018 together with the appellant’s reply brief, also deemed filed on 4/5/2023 in urging the Court to allow the appeal. L. E. Ugbong, State counsel, Ministry of Justice, Cross River State relied and adopted the respondent’s brief also deemed filed on 4/5/2023.