Uyo Local Government V. Idito Fisher Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Uyo Local Government has appealed against the ruling of his Lordship, Justice A. E. Archibong of the High Court of Justice, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State delivered on the 17th day of April, 2007 dismissing an application that her name be struck out from the suit pending before his Lordship’s Court of Justice. The appeal was filed on 24th April, 2007. There are three grounds of appeal attacking the ruling of his Lordship.

The facts that led to Idito Fisher Nigeria Ltd (1st Respondent) instituting this suit before the High Court of Justice, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State are as follows:

On 27th day of August, 1992 Uyo Local Government entered into a contract with Idito Fisher Nigeria Ltd for the supply and electrification of Ibesikpo Communities at the contract price of two million five hundred thousand Naira only (N2.5M). On the 2nd day of August, 1993 the contract was reviewed upward to N5million. In the course of executing the projects Uyo Local Government became cash trapped so the tempo of work slowed down. Nevertheless at her request the plaintiff supplied electrical equipment worth N3,672,600.00. The work was being supervised by the Ministry of Works. On the 10th day of May, 1996 the Uyo Local Government terminated the contract citing various reasons.

The plaintiff instituted this suit on 13-01-1997 and pleaded that the contract had been terminated and awarded to Afct Consultants Ltd. In paragraphs 13-17 of the Amended Statement of Claim the following facts were pleaded and reliefs claimed by the plaintiff against Uyo Local Government:

“13. The Plaintiff states that the entire process of the Defendants ending in the purported termination was done unreasonably and in bad faith – in that the Defendants know that;

“(a) The Plaintiff caused no delay of the project.

(b) There was revision of the project as at 1993.

(c) The Plaintiff had completed 80% of the project.

(d) The Plaintiff financed the project with monies borrowed from Banks at high interest rates.

(e) Huge debts owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff still remained unpaid.

(f) The Plaintiff is ready and willing to complete the project if and when the Defendant resume payment.

(g) The Defendants did not comply with the terms of the contract which however was subsumed in the Contract Revision.

(h) The Plaintiff had major equipment and materials on site, which would or may be vandalized and stolen in event of a re-award to another person.