ROBERTSON v. LIVINGSPRING MICRO FINANCE BANK LTD & ANOR
(2020)LCN/15250(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Tuesday, May 05, 2020
CA/C/158/2018
Before Our Lordships:
Mojeed Adekunle Owoade Justice of the Court of Appeal
Philomena Mbua Ekpe Justice of the Court of Appeal
Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
AYE JAMES ROBERTSON APPELANT(S)
And
1. LIVINGSPRING MICRO FINANCE BANK LTD 2. ALHAJI SULAIMAN OFFIONG RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
MEANING OF A REPLY BRIEF
Tobi JSC in the case of Mozie vs. Mbamalu (2006) LPELR – 1922 (SC) expressed the view that a reply brief means no more than a reply to the respondents brief. It is filed when an issue of law or arguments raised in the respondents brief call for a reply. A reply brief deals only with new points arising from the respondents brief. In the absence of a new point, a reply brief is otiose and the Court entitled to discountenance it. See also Mini Lodge Ltd vs. Ngei and Anor (2009) 18 NWLR (pt. 1173) 254, Ikine vs. Edjerode (2001) LPELR – 1479 (SC). PER BARKA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT GRANT OF INTEREST BY MONEY LENDERS AND BANKING INSTITUTIONS MUST BE BASED ON INTEREST RATE PUBLICLY DISPLAYED
It is trite that the grant of interest by money lenders and banking institutions must be based on such interest rate publicly displayed to the customer and strictly proved. See Olademo vs. Lagos Building Inv. Co. Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 592) 1768 @ 1771. PER BARKA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW CAN GRANT ANY INTEREST FOR UNRESOLVED MATTERS BETWEEN PARTIES SAVE FOR STATUTORY INTEREST
I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion that the law cannot grant any interest for unresolved matters between parties save for statutory interest. PER EKPE, J.C.A.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Cross River State, Calabar Division, in suit No. HC/29/2016 between Aye James Robertson, suing by Attorney Ayeanwan Eyo Aye, and Living Spring Micro Finance Bank Ltd and one other delivered on the 25th day of September, 2017. By the said judgment, the claimants claim was granted in the following terms:
“From the above, it is clear that a Micro Finance Bank is not permitted to grant a loan exceeding N500,000.00. while giving evidence under cross-examination on 8/5/2017, DW1 said a Micro Finance Bank could give a micro loan which is limited to N500,000.00, and other loans beyond N500,000,00. But it was the defendant who tendered Exhibit 19 as the extant guidelines regarding their operation as a Micro Finance Bank. Throughout Exhibit 19 I have not seen where a Micro Finance Bank is permitted to grant any loan other than the micro loan mentioned therein. DW1 did not also refer me to such provision in the guidelines (exhibit 19). The law does not give effect to illegality. I will therefore uphold N500,000.00 of the loan being what the defendants could lawfully advance to the Claimant on the agreed interest rate of 30% per month, as agreed between the Claimant and defendants.
That leaves N1.5 Million which both parties have agreed was loaned by the defendants to the claimant. I earlier in this judgment stated that Banks do not give out monies for free. To meet the justice of this case, I hereby order the claimant to repay the sum of N1.5 Million to the defendants.
Pursuant to Order 35 Rule 4 of this Court, I order interest on the N1.5 Million at the rate of 10% per annum from 25/1/2013, the date the N2 Million was advanced to the claimant as stated on Exhibit 2, until judgment”.
The parties offer discordant tunes with regard to the facts emanating the case leading to the present appeal. The appellant, who was the respondent before the lower Court, states his story as follows:
1. That the Appellant (Aye James Robertson) at various times received from the 1st Respondent (A Micro-Finance Bank) the total sum of N2,000.000.00 (Two Million Naira Only). The Appellant did these through his elder cousin, one Mr. N. H. Nkute.
2. The 1st Respondent working in concert with the 2nd Respondent who is the owner and majority shareholder of the 1st Respondent demanded (contrary to the revised regulatory and supervisory guidelines for Micro Finance Banks in Nigeria admitted as exhibit 19), and collected the original documents of the Appellants property a duplex consisting of four flats’ (Three bedroom each) and a boys quarters as a backup/security for the N2,000.000.00 (Two Million Naira Only) granted.
3. The tenor of the said facility was 6 (six) months to terminate on the 31st of July, 2013. The Appellant contended that only the attestation page of the loan agreement was scanned and sent to him by the 1st Respondent which he signed before the money was released to him through his elder cousin Mr. N. H. Nkute, (see page 18 of the Records of Appeal, the said document was admitted as Exhibit 3).
4. Surprisingly the Appellant received from the 1st Respondent less than two weeks after the said facility was granted, a letter (Exhibit 4) to the effect that his liability to the 1st Respondent stood at N5,300,000.00 (Five Million Three Hundred Thousand Naira Only) which should be N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as interest monthly before the due date. (See page 19 of the Record of Appeal).
5. Before the expiration of the repayment period, the 2nd Respondent (who is the director, alter ego and owner of 1st respondent) severally harassed and intimidated the occupants of the property alleging, that the Appellant has executed a Deed transferring the same to him, (Exhibit 20). He also published on the walls of the building (as demonstrated on Exhibits 5A-5D being digital photographs) that the property belongs to the 1st Respondent. (See pages 20-23 of the Records of Appeal).
6. Due to the obvious fraudulent nature of the transaction (see particulars as pleaded in paragraph 14 (i) – (viii) of the statement of claim as found in 6 of the Records of Appeal) particularly the arbitrary and evidently unsustainable figure peddled as interest/Appellant’s indebtedness, the Appellant instructed his lawyers to write requesting the loan agreement and the actual indebtedness of the Appellant (Exhibit 7) which demand, the Respondents failed, refused and neglected to honor. (see pages 26-27 of the Records of Appeal).
7. Flowing from the above and having regards to the unreasonably high and excruciating interest rate which the Appellant at no time agreed or acceded to and flagrant abuse of the extant financial regulations from the inception of the loan which indicates that the respondents packaged the loan with the ultimate intention to cripple the Appellants ability to repay with a view to dispose the Appellant’s property situate and lying at No. 26 Wilkie Street, Calabar, the Appellant instituted the action that snowballed in this appeal.
The respondent as claimant before the lower Court, stated his side of the story in the following words:
2. The entire transaction leading to this case was documentary. The claimant acted through his solicitor Barr. Dominic E. Ntiero and Eder Chief N. H. Nkute was granted a facility for a period of time. The term of the transaction was payment of 30% interest per month, the facility was for a term of 6 (six) months and the claimants property at No. 26 Wilkie Street, Calabar was placed as collateral.
The claimant PW1 under cross examination admitted this facts on oath. The defendant tendered the loan Agreement and same was admitted by the claimant.
See Exhibit 10.
3.3 In this case, the claimant has absolutely refused to perform the contract by not repaying the facility. The CW1 admits this facts under cross-examination when she said that the claimant had not repaid the facility and that she is in custody of the sum of N2,000.000.00 (Two Million Naira Only) where one party has absolutely refused to perform or has rendered himself incapable of performing his/her part of the contract he puts it in the power of the other party either to sue for a breach of it or to rescind the contract. Hence the reason why the defendant counter-claim and claim against the claimant. See Ban-Nelson (Nig) Ltd vs. MLGKS (2007) WRN 77.
3.4 Finally, where one party is in breach of the terms of a contract it gives right to the other party to rescind the contract where the breach is serious and claim for damages for the breach. Hence the defendants counter-claim herein is for the breach of the contract.
The parties having failed to reach an agreement, caused the respondent herein to file a writ of summons dated and filed on the 28th day of January, 2016, claiming for the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, his servants, agents, and hirelings from further acts of intimidation, evicting the claimant and occupiers of No. 26 Wilkie Street, Calabar, disposing of the property.
2. A DECLARATION that the defendants are not entitled to the sum of N600,000.00(Six Hundred Thousand Naira Only) a month or any sum whatsoever as interest on the loan the subject matter of the transaction other than what is approved for banks by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
3. General Damages of N20,000,000,00 (Twenty Million Naira Only) for the several fraudulent unethical and unprofessional conduct of the defendants for forcefully takeover of the property described as No. 26 Wilkie street, Calabar which has caused great hardship, embarrassment and pain to the Claimant.
On receipt of the writ of summons endorsed with the statement of claim, the defendant filed a statement of defence, wherein he denied the plaintiffs claim, and by way of a counterclaim, sought for the following reliefs:
a) A declaration that the property lying and situate at No. 26 Wilkie street, Calabar South compromising of an uncompleted storey Building of 4 (four) flats is the bonafide property of the Defendants by virtue of the Loan Agreement dated 24/12/2012 and the Deed of Assignment executed by the Claimant in favour of the Defendants acknowledging receipt of money.
b) An Order of perpetual Injunction restraining the Claimant whether by himself, its servants, workers, agents and or privies and indeed anybody acting on its instruction from interfering with the Defendants right of possession and enjoyment of the property lying and situate at No. 26 Wilkie street, Calabar South Local Government Area, Cross Rivers State.
Or
c) An Order directing the Claimant to pay the sum of 22,100,000 (Twenty-two Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being outstanding indebtedness to the Defendants.
Issues having been joined, the claimant called a single witness who gave evidence, tendered some exhibits and thereafter closed its case. The defendant also called one witness who gave evidence and tendered some exhibits. At the close of trial, parties filed and adopted their briefs, setting the stage for the vexed judgment delivered on the 25th of September, 2015.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, appellant filed a notice of appeal on the 1st of November, 2017 predicated on two grounds. The appeal was thereafter entered to this Court on the 28th of March, 2018 with the leave of Court. The appellant filed a brief of argument on the 19th of February, 2019 but deemed properly filed on the 19th of March, 2020. On receipt of the respondents brief, appellant filed a reply brief on the 23rd of April, 2019, also deemed as properly filed on the 19th of March, 2020. Learned counsel for the appellant on the scheduled hearing date being the 19th of March, 2020, identified the processes filed and adopted his brief in urging the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and grant the reliefs sought by the appellant.
In opposing the appeal, the respondent filed a respondent’s brief on the 11th of April, 2019 but deemed properly filed on the 19th of March, 2020. On the same date scheduled for hearing, counsel for the respondent adopted the brief filed and urged the Court to also allow the appeal and to enter judgment for the respondent.
In the brief settled by Effiom Ayi, the learned counsel for the appellant, a sole issue was formulated for the resolution of this appeal thus:
Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error by inexplicably giving validity to a transaction he held to be illegal and also whether the transaction can be adjudged to be valid in view of the several incidence of fraud in which the same suffered.
The respondent in the brief settled by Ukpong Eba identified two issues for the determination of the appeal as follows:
i. whether or not the learned trial Judge had properly evaluated the evidences, particularly exhibit 10, placed before him before delivering judgment in the suit.
ii. whether the decision of the learned Trial Judge was supported by the evidence before him or had the decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The appellant’s submissions in respect of his sole issue can be seen at pages 3 – 11 of the brief. From the brief under reference, learned counsel submitted that owing to paragraph 1:2:4 of exhibit 19, the revised regulatory and supervisory guidelines for Micro Finance Bank in Nigeria, which controls and governs the activities of the 1st Respondent, the transaction between the parties was in flagrant abuse and disregard to the extant financial regulations of the Apex Bank. Counsel submits that the use of the word shall in the legislation, imputes mandatoriliness, and anything done or purported to be done outside the manner provided by law, statute or rules or regulations of Court given or laid down pursuant to the powers prescribed by law, the same amounts to a nullity and is void and of no effect. The cases of Amasike vs. Registrar General CAC (2006) NWLR (pt. 968) 462 – 470, and Olufunso Williams vs. Bola Tinubu (2014) ALL FWLR (pt. 755) 200 @ 204.
Learned counsel argued that though the trial Court rightly held that a micro finance bank had no capacity to grant a loan over N500,000.00, yet somersaulted in validating the transaction and awarded the sums of N1,500, 000.00.
On the issue of the interest awarded by the trial Court, it was submitted that the trial Court engaged in sentimental and arbitrary dispensation of the interest rate based on a wrong premise. He referred the Court to the case of Olademo vs. Lagos Building Inv. Co. Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 592) 1768 @ 1771, and many other cases on the legal principle that interest rates must be publicly displayed to customers and when the need arises must be strictly proved. He argued that such interest rates was not publicly displayed, and despite the fact that appellants refuted the interest rate claimed, went ahead to award an interest rate of 30% per month. On exhibit 10, the alleged contractual document, learned counsel alluded to the holding of the lower Court at pages 102 of the record, and analysing the issues with regards to the stated exhibit wondered how the trial Court still persisted to award interest based on the alleged fraudulent document. He urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in its favour, allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court and grant the appellants reliefs.
The response of the respondent can be seen at pages 7 – 10 of the brief filed on behalf of the respondents, under two issues. With respect to the first issue, it was argued that the Court failed to properly evaluate exhibit 10 placed before it before proceeding to judgment. While complaining that the trial judge merely followed the opinion of the appellants counsel, which beclouded his sense of judgment, and thereby failed to make proper evaluation of the evidence before it, nor did it avail itself of the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ozua vs. Suleiman (2009) 11 WRN 154 @ 156, lines 35 – 40. He then complained that the trial Court failed to evaluate the case of the defendant, and thereby invited this Court to intervene in that behalf. He submitted that exhibits 10 and 18 were not considered at all and thereby urged the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to enter judgment as per their counterclaim.
Responding on points of law, Mr Ayi for the appellant drew the Court’s attention to the signing of the respondent’s brief, contending that the signing was improper and thereby incompetent. On the two issues canvassed by the respondent’s counsel, it was the contention of the appellant that the two issues did not emanate from the grounds of appeal filed. He urged the Court to discountenance the respondents brief as being grossly incompetent, and to hold that the respondents had conceded to the appellant’s position.
Let me first in time attend to the two issues highlighted by the appellant in his reply on points of law. Tobi JSC in the case of Mozie vs. Mbamalu (2006) LPELR – 1922 (SC) expressed the view that a reply brief means no more than a reply to the respondents brief. It is filed when an issue of law or arguments raised in the respondents brief call for a reply. A reply brief deals only with new points arising from the respondents brief. In the absence of a new point, a reply brief is otiose and the Court entitled to discountenance it. See also Mini Lodge Ltd vs. Ngei and Anor (2009) 18 NWLR (pt. 1173) 254, Ikine vs. Edjerode (2001) LPELR – 1479 (SC).
In the latter case, Ejinwunmi JSC, pointed out that a reply brief should be strictly limited to finding answers to questions raised in the respondents brief and which the appellants had not addressed or dealt with in the appellant’s brief. The learned counsel for the appellant now raised two cardinal issues in the reply brief. Firstly, whether the respondents brief was properly signed and thereby competent, and whether the two issues raised by the respondent is covered or arises from the grounds of appeal filed. To be resolved is whether the learned counsel is right in raising this issues at the reply stage. My humble but firm opinion is that he cannot. The case of Ikine vs. Edjerode (supra) is apt on the issue.
It is the law that a person be not crucified in his absence, and by raising the new issues at the reply stage denied the respondent a right of reply. My humble view is that the only window open to the appellant to ventilate the issues propped up in the reply brief would have been to come by way of a motion on notice, querying the respondent’s brief and or the originating process before the hearing of the appeal. Even though I must and do concede to the fact that respondents stance with respect to the instant appeal appears to be novel, in that whereas he seems to have conceded to the appeal, still proceeded to seek for order of Court granting the counterclaim without filing a cross appeal and or a notice to contend that the appeal be allowed on grounds other than those upon which the appeal is being fought on, the Court still has the duty of considering the appeal on the merit. It is in that light that the two issues being in the nature of an objection to the respondents brief as well as the originating process is hereby discountenanced.
I now proceed to the resolution of the appeal. It appears to me without doubt that the substance of the appellants case is founded on the ground that the transaction between the appellant and the respondent was in flagrant and objectionable disregard to the extant financial regulations governing the respondent enshrined in paragraph 1,2,4 of the revised regulatory and supervisory guidelines for micro finance Banks in Nigeria. Let me therefore refer to the paragraph in question which provides that:
“A microfinance loan is granted to the operators of Micro-enterprises such as peasants, farmers, artisans, fishermen, youths, women, senior citizens and non-salaried workers in the formal and informal sectors. The loan is usually unsecured, but typically granted on the basis of the applicants character and the combined cash flow of the business and household. In line with best practices, the maximum principal amount shall not exceed N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).”
From the evidence led, and based on the admitted stance of the respondent, the trial Court held that:
“From the above it is clear that a micro-finance bank is not permitted to grant a loan exceeding N500,000.00. While giving evidence under cross examination on 8/5/2017, DW 1 said a micro-loan which is limited to N500, 000.00 and other loans beyond N500,000.00. But it was the defendant who tendered exhibit 19, I have not seen where a micro finance bank is permitted to grant loan other than the microloan mentioned therein. DW 1 also did not refer me to such provision in the guideline (exhibit 19). The law does not give effect to illegality.”
The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the authorities of Amasike vs. Registrar General C.A.C (2006) NWLR (pt. 968) 462-470, and Olufunso Williams vs. Bola Tinubu (supra) rightly posited that a public body or authority invested with statutory powers must act within the law and take care not to exceed or abuse its powers, but must keep within the limits of the powers bestowed on it; and further that where the law expressly lays down the regulation and procedure for the doing of an act, the absence of compliance is never excused, giving no leeway for deviation or variation. I agree with him. In the case of Abiotex International Limited vs. Fidelity Bank Plc (2016) LPELR – 40494 (CA), I had cause relying on the earlier decision of Commerce Bank Nig. Ltd vs. AG Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (pt. 261) 528 @ 556, to state the law in that where the statute makes provisions for a particular method of doing things, or the performance of a duty, that method and no other must be adopted.
It is obvious as found by the trial Court, which finding has not been appealed against, that the respondent not only illegally and without authority purported to grant the appellant a loan facility of Two Million Naira, well above its mandate, but also foisted on the appellant conditions which they were not empowered to do by statute. The lower Court having reached the decision that the contract between the Micro Bank and the appellant was illegal, there was no basis whatsoever upon which the lower Court could have deviated from its findings and to award the sum of N1,500,000.00 to the respondent in the absence of pleadings and or evidence in that regard. Indeed it is plain that respondent at no time solicited for the amount awarded. I have no doubt whatsoever that the lower Court gravely erred after arriving at its finding that the 1st respondent is empowered to grant loans limited to N500,000.00 to now turn round and make an order awarding the sums of N1,500,000.000 and interest rate as indicated in the judgment. Whereas it is not in dispute that the relationship of a bank and its customer is contractual, see Obichi Investment & Management Consultant Limited vs. Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank (2018) LPELR-44204 (CA), it flows therefrom that decisions of Court are solidly based on evidence founded on pleaded facts and the state of the law, and must never be subjected to extraneous considerations, sympathy nor sentiment. See the case of Atagbor vs. Okpo (2013) ALL FWLR (pt. 680) 1362 @ 1381.
In the instant case, and gauging from the finding of the trial Court that the 1st respondent awarded to the appellant, credit facility well beyond its mandate and in complete disregard to the provisions of Exhibit 19, the revised Regulatory and Supervisory Guidelines for Micro-Finance Banks in Nigeria, amounted to an illegality, which no Court and indeed this Court can condone. This resolve of mine is strengthened by the holding of the Apex Court sitting as a full Court in the case of Chief Harold Sodipo vs. Lemminkainen OY & Anor (1985) NWLR (pt. 8) 547, also cited as (1985) LPELR-3088 (SC), where it held that:
“No Court ought to enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made an instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, if the illegality is duly brought to the notice of the Court, and if the person invoking the aid of the Court is himself implicated in the illegality. It mattered not whether the defendant pleaded the illegality or not. If the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proved the illegality, the Court ought not to assist him”.
The apex Court restated the position of the law to the effect that, no Court of law will lend its aid to a man who founds its cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. See Pan Bisbilder Nigeria Ltd vs. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2000) LPELR-2900.
Having determined the crux of the appeal to the effect that the contract between the parties was in breach of exhibit 19, and thereby illegal, the respondents brief anchored on whether the lower Court appraised and gave value to exhibit 10, which purportedly contains the terms of the illegal contract between the parties becomes otiose and of no moment. In any case, exhibit 10, which formed the basis of the trial Court granting the award of sums of money against the appellant, dated the 24th of December, 2012 predated the grant of the loan on the 25th of January, 2013. Further to that, exhibit 10 was in respect of a loan transaction of N5,300,000.00, a sum the appellant never applied for nor was the sum granted. The lower Court in its judgment specifically at page 102 of the record, reasoned that:
“At paragraph 5 of the statement of defence the defendants plead that there was an agreement executed in respect of the loan. That agreement was tendered by the defendant as exhibit 10 without any objection by the claimant. Exhibit 10 is an agreement over a loan of N5,300,000.00. It is dated 24/12/2012. From exhibit 2, the two million naira in issue here was advance to the claimant in January 2013. Certainly exhibit 10 and 2 are not talking about the same loan, why would Mr Robertson sign Exhibit 10 when not one kobo had been advanced to him by the defendant. I have not been told.”
I agree with the appellant that the whole transaction appears suspicious, and upon a proper evaluation of the entirety of the evidence, both oral and documentary, there was no basis for the award of the sums of N1,500,000.00 and interest rate of 10% in favour of the respondent.
Let me add, that the position of the law still remains that where a contract taken at its face value is legal and does not offend public policy stands to be enforced by the Courts. This is because parties are deemed to intend the necessary consequence of what they are agreeing upon. Where however as in the instant case, the contract between the parties is inherently dubious, dishonest and reprehensible running against the principle of equity and good conscience, then no Court will lend its weight to such a transaction. What the respondent is asking this Court to do, is to give legal weight to an agreement well above the statutory limit with interest of 30% per month runs against all civilized behaviour and decency. See West Construction Company Ltd vs. Santos M. Batalha (2006) LPELR-3478 (SC) per Pats Acholonu JSC.
The learned jurist in the case just cited, alluded to situations that could make certain contracts unenforceable to include:
i. Where both knew that the performance of the contract necessarily involves the commission of an act which to their knowledge is criminal in nature.
ii. Where both parties knew that the contract is intended to be performed in a manner which to their knowledge is legally objectionable in that sense.
iii. The purpose of the contract entered by the parties should be seen to be objectionable and that notwithstanding still went on with the contract.
iv. Where both parties participated in performing the contract in the manner which they knew was legally unacceptable.
I have earlier set out that by exhibit 10 before the Court, parties entered into a contract which offended the stipulations of the law governing the operations of a Micro Finance Bank, with conditions running contrary to such law. I strongly believe that the acts of the parties in the instant case fall within the contemplation of the case just cited.
Talking about the award of interest granted, the law cannot grant any interest for which the parties are not settled upon save for statutory interest. It is trite that the grant of interest by money lenders and banking institutions must be based on such interest rate publicly displayed to the customer and strictly proved. See Olademo vs. Lagos Building Inv. Co. Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 592) 1768 @ 1771. The trial Court cannot be right therefore when it refused to accept the fact that respondent could grant a loan of Two million naira and proceeded to limit same to N500,000.00, being in his own words, what the claimant can lawfully advance to the appellant and still proceeded to award an interest rate of 30% per month. This colossal misadventure in law is unpardonable and cannot be allowed as same had no basis whatsoever. I find immense merit in this appeal, and thereby allow same. Consequently, the judgment of Eyo E. Ita J, of the High Court of Justice Calabar Division in suit with No. HC/29/2016 delivered on the 25th day of September, 2017 is hereby set aside. In its place, I hereby grant all the reliefs sought by the appellants in their writ of summons filed on the 28th of January, 2016.
The respondents shall further pay costs assessed at N50,000.00 to the appellants.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother Hamma Akawu Barka, JCA. My learned brother has carefully dealt with the two (2) issues nominated for the determination of the appeal.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment.
I abide with the consequential orders and the order as to costs.
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother H. A. Barka, JCA.
My lord has very painstakingly dealt with all the intricate and salient issues involved therein. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion that the law cannot grant any interest for unresolved matters between parties save for statutory interest. I further throw my weight behind the reasoning in the lead judgment in granting all the reliefs sought by the appellants in their writ of summons.
This appeal is hereby adjudged meritorious and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment of Eyo E. Ita J, of the High Court of Justice Calabar Division in Suit No. HC/29/2016 delivered on the 25th day Of September, 2017 is hereby set aside.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
I abide by the order of cost in the lead judgment.
Appeal allowed.
Appearances:
Effiom Ayi For Appellant(s)
E. Bassey For Respondent(s)
