AONDOFA v. FBN, VANDEIKYA BRANCH
(2022)LCN/16233(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, February 03, 2022
CA/MK/175/2016
Before Our Lordships:
Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal
Cordelia Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
MR. NYINYA PAUL AONDOFA APPELANT(S)
And
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED, VANDEIKYA BRANCH RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT
In the determination of this Appeal, the learned Counsel to the Appellant has called on us to re-evaluate the entire case on the ground that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence placed before her. This is particularly so because the Appellate Court can interfere in the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court where the conclusion reached is said to be perverse. However, where a case is based on documentary evidence as in this instance, an Appellate Court is in a good position to re-evaluate the evidence. See the authorities of ASIKA V. ATUANYA (2008) 17 NWLR (1117) 484-522; JIMOH V. AKANDE (2009) 5 NWLR (1135) 549,584. PER AGUBE, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE PLEADINGS CONTRADICT A TENDERED DOCUMENT ON A VITAL POINT IN ISSUE
It is the law that where pleadings contradict a tendered document on a vital/material point in issue, the case of the Plaintiff/Appellant becomes disastrous, unreliable and weakened. See the authorities of ESIKA V. MEDOLU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT. 485) P. 54 AT P. 69; OKEREKE V. THE STATE (1998) 3 NWLR (PT.540) P. 73 AT P. 91.
On the same score, the Apex Court per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC in the case of AHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU V. ALHAJI USMAN JAUROYEL & ORS (2014) LPELR-22732 (SC) held that:
“It is also trite that where the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is contradictory, he would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him”.
The legendary Law Lord of the Apex Court TOBI, JSC in the case of EUGENE NNAEKWE EGESIMBA V. ONUZURUIKE (2002) FWLR (PT. 128) P. 1386 AT PG. 1432; had this to say on the effect of contradiction that:
“A contradiction is material if it relates to or affects the live Issue in the matter to the extent that, but for the contradiction, judgment should have been given in favour of the party who called the contradictory evidence”. PER AGUBE, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A CAUSE OF ACTION
The Supreme Court per OGUNDARE, JSC in the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE (2001) LPELR-24862 (SC) held that:
“It is trite that what constitute a cause of action is the entire circumstances giving rise to an enforceable Claim. See SAVAGE V. UWECHIA (1972) 3 SC 214,221. Lord ESHER, in READ V. BROWN (1888) 22 QBD 128 defined cause of action as meaning every fact that would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It also includes all those things necessary to give the right of action. See EMIATOR V. NIGERIAN ARMY & ORS (1999) 12 NWLR 362. Where the Statement of Claim discloses no Cause of Action, it will be struck out and the action dismissed”. PER AGUBE, J.C.A.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Benue State sitting in Vandeikya and delivered by Hon. Justice D.M. Igyuse on the 27th day of July, 2016 whereof the Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 9th of August, 2016 anchored on Three (3) Grounds which I reproduce albeit without their respective particulars to wit:-
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
GROUND ONE:
The decision is against the weight of evidence.
GROUND TWO:
The lower Court was wrong in its finding of facts when it held:
“The Statement of Account Exhibit “P1” of the Plaintiff shows that the said balance of N10,000.00 was returned and credited to the Plaintiff’s Savings Account on the 29/02/2016, the next day after his complaint in Exhibit “P2”. The refund of the N50,000.00 excess debit of the Account No. of the Plaintiff by the Defendant on 28/02/2016 was N40,000.00 in two equal installments or payment/refund of N20,000.00 each. The Plaintiff complained of the balance of N10,000.00 which the Defendant responded positively by refunding same or crediting the Plaintiff’s account on 29/02/2016, being just the following day of the complaint with N10,000.00. This can be clearly seen from the Statement of Account, Exhibit “P1” tendered by the Plaintiff in this Claim. The Defendant properly reverted the excess debit of N50,000.00 to the Plaintiff between 28/02/2016 and 29/02/2016 three times broken into N20,000.00; N20,000.00 and N10,000.00 respectively. The solicitors letter to the Defendant over the balance of N10,000.00, Exhibit “P3” and this Suit therefore became unnecessary.”
GROUND THREE:
The lower Court erred in law when it held:
“On the whole and based on my findings as above, I hold that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant talk less of proving the claim. I am therefore, accordingly guided in the circumstances of this claim by the Supreme Court Judgment of ADEKOYA V. FED. HOUSING AUTHORITY (2008) 14 PT. 2 NSCQR P. 952/975 per Akintan, JSC and ONUEKWUSI V. THE REG. TRUSTEES OF CHRIST METHODIST ZION CHURCH (2011) 2 SCNJ P. 126/140 per Muhammad JSC and dismiss the entire Claim of the Plaintiff. Claim dismissed.”
RELIEF SOUGHT:
1. An Order allowing the Appeal.
2. An Order setting aside the decision of the lower Court delivered on the 27th day of July, 2016.
3. An Order remitting the Suit to the Chief Judge of Benue State for retrial before another Judge of the High Court of Justice, Benue State.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The summary of the case is that the Appellant being a customer of the Respondent with account number 3033266601 used his ATM Card No. 5399233034041801 in attempting to withdraw the sum of N200,000.00 on the 28th day of February, 2016 but was only paid the sum of N150,000.00 while his account was debited with the sum of N200,000.00.
It was the case of the Appellant that the Respondent subsequently rectified the erroneous debit with the reversal of the sum of N40,000.00 only out of the total sum of N50,000.00 into the Appellant’s account and the sum of N10,000.00 was not reverted and that on the 29th day of February, 2016, the Appellant lodged a complaint with the Respondent vide the E-channel Transaction Form and was assured by the Respondent’s Service Manager, one OGBOLE SAMUEL that the erroneous debit would be promptly rectified but to no avail in spite of several demands.
According to the Appellant, piqued by the unconcerned disposition of the Respondent to rectify the erroneous debit, he initiated the action in Court on the 14th day of June, 2016 whereof he claimed against the Respondent/Defendant as follows:
1. A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the willful, unjustifiable refusal and inexplicable failure of the Defendant to make a reversal of the erroneous debited sum of N10,000.00 only meant for the Plaintiff into his account No. 3033266601 after a formal complaint, and visits and several demands to that effect is willful, spiteful and constitute a negligent breach of contract.
2. (a) Special damages
Particulars of Special damages
The sum of N10,000.00 only erroneously debited by the Defendant’s Automated Teller Machine on Account No. 3033266601 in the name of the Plaintiff from a cash withdrawal transaction on the 28/02/2016
(b) General damages of N50,000,000.00 only for willful misconduct and negligent breach of contract; and causing psychological and traumatic pains and economic ruination to the Plaintiff
3. Cost of action.
It was the further case of the Appellant that in spite of the service of the Originating Processes on the Respondent, he failed to appear in Court. However, on the 26th day of July, 2016, the suit was heard and the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff thereafter prayed the Court to wave the filing of their respective Written Addresses and proceed in the delivery of the Judgment. See pages 26-28 of the Record. Accordingly, Judgment was thereafter delivered and the Trial Court dismissed the claim of the Appellant on the basis that it discloses no cause of action against the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the Judgment as earlier stated, the Appellant filed this Appeal.
The Record of Appeal was thereafter transmitted and entered in this Court. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by T.O.A.C. Kaakwagh-Tamen Esq., dated 6th December, 2016, was filed on the 7th day of December, wherein Three (3) Issues were distilled for determination as reproduced hereunder:-
“ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
ISSUE ONE:
Whether from the totality of the evidence led before the Trial Court, the Judgment was against the weight of evidence?
ISSUE TWO:
Whether the Respondent refunded/reverted the outstanding erroneous debit sum of N10,000.00 only to the Appellant to justify the decision of the Trial Court?
ISSUE THREE:
Whether the Appellant has no cause of action against the Respondent in the circumstances of this Suit?”
On the other hand, the Respondent’s Brief of Argument was settled by Mrs. M. E. Fayomi dated and filed on the 18th of October, 2018 whereof a sole issue was distilled for the determination as reproduced hereunder:
“ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
ISSUE ONE:
Whether from the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it was right to have arrived at its decision of the dismissal of the Appellant’s Suit?”
ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ON ISSUES ONE AND TWO:
WHETHER FROM THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE LED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, THE JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE?
AND
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT REFUNDED OR REVERTED THE OUTSTANDING ERRONEOUS DEBIT SUM OF N10,000.00 ONLY TO THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT?
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the trial Court made a wrong inference from the facts of the case and its Judgment cannot be sustained by the evidence adduced. He maintained that the sum of N40,000.00 was paid to the Appellant’s account out of the N50,000.00 that was erroneously debited by the Respondent and that the balance of N10,000.00 was not credited to his account in spite of several visits and demand.
Again, the learned Counsel for the Appellant cited the case of OTUKPO V. JOHN (2012) 7 NWLR (PT. 1299) 357 AT 384 PARAS D-F in submitting that the learned Trial Judge proceeded in error that it was on the 28th day of February, 2016 that the Appellant made a formal complaint to the Respondent in view of the debit. He further submitted that the complaint was made on the 29th day of February, 2016 which was a working day precisely Monday.
It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the decision of the Trial Court that Exhibit “P1” showed that the said balance of N10,000.00 was returned and credited on the 29th of February, 2016 being the next day after the complaint in Exhibit “P2” was unsupported by the evidence placed before the Court. Relying on the authorities of OSAZEE OJO V. MRS. JACOB ESOHE & ORS (1999) 5 NWLR (PT. 603) 351 AT 444; ADEBAYO V. SHOGO (2005) 7 NWLR (PT. 925) 467 AT 478 PARAS D-F, he submitted that the Appellant sufficiently pleaded the sum of N10,000.00 which was in controversy from the transaction of 28/2/2016 and that he was not bound to plead the noticeable N10,000.00 arising from the transaction of 29/2/2016 that was not in Issue.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the analysis of Exhibit “P1” particularly columns 6-15 at page 1 disclosed that the opening balance on the Appellant’s account before the transaction of 28/2/2016 was N241,000.00 while his closing balance after the transaction was N81,000.00 which ought to have been N91,000.00 and that there was no time that the sum of N10,000.00 was reverted to his account. He referred us to the authorities of ADISA V. STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT.167) 490 AT 500; OKONJI V. NJOKANMA (1999) 73 LRCN 363; A.C.B PLC V. EMOSTRADE LTD (2002) 8 NWLR (PT.770) 501; UNITY BANK V. OLATUNJI (2013) 15 NWLR (PT.1378) 503 AT 535 PARAS B-D to buttress his case.
From the foregoing, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had established by credible, cogent and compelling evidence that the sum of N10,000.00 due to him from the erroneous debit made from his account on 28/2/2016 was never reverted, refunded or credited and that the Trial Court was bound to have accepted same as unchallenged. He further submitted that the decision of the Trial Court in that regard has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the pecuniary interest of the Appellant as a customer of the Respondent.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the case of B.E.G.H LTD V. U.H.S & L. LTD (2011) 7 NWLR (PT.1246) AT 283 PARAS C-D in submitting that this Court is bound to review the findings of the Trial Court for its failure to make justifiable findings on the material facts. He therefore urged us to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent.
ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ON ISSUE THREE:
WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS SUIT?”
The learned Counsel for the Appellant answered the question posed in the affirmative that the Appellant had a cause of action against the Respondent which strongly sustained his case and not otherwise as erroneously concluded by the learned Trial Judge. He referred us to page 32 of the Record/Judgment. Still on the same score, he adopted the submissions in paragraphs 4.2-4.6 of his Brief of Argument and submitted further that the Respondent negligently failed, omitted and refused to make a reversal of the erroneous debit of the sum of N10,000.00 from the total debit of N50,000.00 arising from the transaction of 28/2/2016. He referred us to pages 16, 23 and 24 of the Records to buttress the above contention.
Again, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the refusal of the Respondent to credit the Appellant’s account as at when due gave the Appellant a cause of action against the Respondent. He referred this Court to the authorities of YARE V. NSIWC (2006) 2 NWLR (PT.965) 546; SHROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY (4TH EDITION) PAGE 406 to substantiate his case.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that assuming the reversal was made; the case of the Appellant would automatically amount to no cause of action against the Respondent to justify the decision of the Trial Judge and that the decision of the Trial Judge that there was no cause of action which gave rise to the dismissal of the Suit was not supported by the evidence placed before the Court in Exhibits “P1”, “P2” and “P3” respectively. He cited the case of IWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT V. ADIGUN (1992) 6 NWLR (PT.133) 494 in submitting that the dismissal of the Appellant’s Claim was a grave error which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice and urged this Court to re-evaluate the entire evidence for the interest of justice. He therefore urged this Court in the light of the foregoing, to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent and to further allow the Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court by remitting the Suit to the Chief Judge of Benue State for retrial before another Judge. ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ON THE SOLE ISSUE:
WHETHER FROM THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, IT WAS RIGHT TO HAVE ARRIVED AT ITS DECISION OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANT’S SUIT?”
The learned Counsel for the Respondent answered the question posed in the affirmative that while it is trite that uncontroverted evidence are deemed admitted, for it to be accepted and relied upon by the Court, it must be credible and reliable. He cited the authorities of AJOMALE V. YADUAT 2 (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 191) 266; EGBUNIKE V. ACB LTD (1995) 2 SCNJ 58. He further submitted that Exhibit “P1” revealed that the sum of N10,000.00 was credited to the Appellant’s account on the 29th of February, 2016 contrary to the Appellant’s assertion in his pleadings and that this forms the basis of the decision of the Trial Court.
Relying on the cases of LEWIS & PEAT V. AKHIMIEN (1976) 7 SC; OKENIYI V. AKANBI (2002) FWLR (PT. 84) PG. 124, the learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Appellant must succeed on the strength of his own case and that he who asserts must prove. He maintained that the Trial Court, having found that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim by credible evidence despite the fact that the said evidence was not contradicted, went ahead to dismiss the suit and that the pleadings of the parties, supported by evidence was what the Court looked at in arriving at its conclusion. He referred us to the case of ESEIGBE V. AGHOLOR (1993) 12 SCNJ 82 AT 105 to support the above submission.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the learned trial Judge found that the Appellant had no cause of action having evaluated the pleadings vis-a-vis the evidence and further discovered that both contradicted each other. He cited the case of EUGENE NNAEMEKWE EGESIMBA V. ONUZURUIKE (2002) FWLR (PT. 128) PG. 1386 AT PG.1432.
Again, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the trial Court was right to have dismissed the Suit of the Appellant having found that Exhibit “P1” did not support the assertion of the Appellant in his pleadings. Citing the cases of EUGENE NNAEMEKWE EGESIMBA V. ONUZURUIKE supra and ESEIGBE V. AGHOLOR (1993) 12 SNJ 82 AT 92; he concluded by submitting that the Appellate Court would only interfere with the findings of the Trial Court if it comes to the conclusion that the findings were perverse. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and to further dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:
Having carefully read through the Record/Ruling of the trial Court and the brilliant arguments canvassed by the respective learned Counsel to the parties, I shall adopt the Respondent’s sole issue for the determination of this Appeal since the three Issues distilled by the Appellant bother on the evaluation of evidence.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
WHETHER FROM THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, IT WAS RIGHT TO HAVE ARRIVED AT ITS DECISION OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANT’S SUIT?”
In the determination of this Appeal, the learned Counsel to the Appellant has called on us to re-evaluate the entire case on the ground that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence placed before her. This is particularly so because the Appellate Court can interfere in the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court where the conclusion reached is said to be perverse. However, where a case is based on documentary evidence as in this instance, an Appellate Court is in a good position to re-evaluate the evidence. See the authorities of ASIKA V. ATUANYA (2008) 17 NWLR (1117) 484-522; JIMOH V. AKANDE (2009) 5 NWLR (1135) 549,584.
In the instant case, the Appellant’s Statement of Account Exhibit “P1” revealed that, on the 29th day of February, 2016, the Appellant’s Account “3033266601” was credited with the sum of (N10,000.00) Ten Thousand Naira for the complete satisfaction of the debit sum of N50,000.00 Fifty Thousand Naira. Thus, for the purpose of clarity, the Account Statement would be reproduced hereunder:
Trans Date Trans Detail Value Date Deposit Withdrawal Balance
29-Feb-16 Rev: ATM Withdrawal-FBN/Vandekiya Branch ATM 4/Vandekiya 29-Feb-16 10,000.00 – 81,008.94
See page 18 line 8 of the Record.
On the contrary, Paragraph 8 of the Appellant’s Statement of Claim states that:
“The Plaintiff states that after he submitted the Form in respect of the un-reversed sum of N10,000.00 erroneously debited by the ATM, the Service Manager promised that the Defendant will make a reversal of the withheld sum of N10,000.00 without delay and unfailingly into the credit of his Account, but have willfully failed, mischievously refused and inexplicably omitted to fulfill its promise in spite of several visits and verbal demands to the Defendant to do so till date”.
As can be gleaned from the above, there is no doubt that Paragraph 8 of the Appellant’s pleadings contradicted his Statement of Account. This is so because from the Statement of Account dated 29th February, 2016, the Respondent had credited the sum of (N10,000.00) Ten Thousand Naira to the Appellant’s Account. It is the law that where pleadings contradict a tendered document on a vital/material point in issue, the case of the Plaintiff/Appellant becomes disastrous, unreliable and weakened. See the authorities of ESIKA V. MEDOLU (1997) 2 NWLR (PT. 485) P. 54 AT P. 69; OKEREKE V. THE STATE (1998) 3 NWLR (PT.540) P. 73 AT P. 91.
On the same score, the Apex Court per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC in the case of AHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU V. ALHAJI USMAN JAUROYEL & ORS (2014) LPELR-22732 (SC) held that:
“It is also trite that where the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff is contradictory, he would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him”.
The legendary Law Lord of the Apex Court TOBI, JSC in the case of EUGENE NNAEKWE EGESIMBA V. ONUZURUIKE (2002) FWLR (PT. 128) P. 1386 AT PG. 1432; had this to say on the effect of contradiction that:
“A contradiction is material if it relates to or affects the live Issue in the matter to the extent that, but for the contradiction, judgment should have been given in favour of the party who called the contradictory evidence”.
Accordingly, it is a truism that the trial Court having found that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim by credible evidence dismissed the Appellant’s suit on the basis that he had no cause of action. This is evident at page 31 lines 8-22 of the Record/Judgment where he held that:
“The Statement of Account Exhibit “P1” of the Plaintiff shows that the said balance of N10,000.00 was returned and credited to the Plaintiff’s savings Account on 29/02/2016, the next day after his complaint in Exhibit “P2”. The refund of the N50,000.00 excess debit of the account No. of the Plaintiff by the Defendant on the 28/02/2016 was N40,000.00 in two equal installments or payment/refund of N20,000.00 each. The Plaintiff complained of the balance of N10,000.00 which the Defendant responded positively by refunding same or crediting the Plaintiff’s Account on 29/02/2016 being just the following day of the complaint with N10,000.00. This can be clearly seen from the Statement of Account, Exhibit “P1” tendered by the Plaintiff in this Claim. The Defendant properly reverted the excess debit of N50,000.00 to the Plaintiff between 28/02/2016 and 29/02/2016, three times broken into N20,000.00, N20,000.00 and N10,000.00 respectively”.
It was for the above reasoning that the Trial Court held at page 32 lines 1-3 that:
“On the whole and based on my findings as above, I hold that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant talk less of proving the claim…”
The Supreme Court per OGUNDARE, JSC in the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE (2001) LPELR-24862 (SC) held that:
“It is trite that what constitute a cause of action is the entire circumstances giving rise to an enforceable Claim. See SAVAGE V. UWECHIA (1972) 3 SC 214,221. Lord ESHER, in READ V. BROWN (1888) 22 QBD 128 defined cause of action as meaning every fact that would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It also includes all those things necessary to give the right of action. See EMIATOR V. NIGERIAN ARMY & ORS (1999) 12 NWLR 362. Where the Statement of Claim discloses no Cause of Action, it will be struck out and the action dismissed”.
It is instructive to assert that the pleadings of the Plaintiff/Appellant together with his Statement of Account Exhibit “P1” formed the aggregate facts which the trial Court relied on in dismissing the suit. Therefore, since Exhibit “P1” revealed that the Respondent credited the account of the Appellant on the 29th of February, 2016, there was absolutely nothing before the Court to determine as the cause of action was defeated.
Flowing from the above, it is my considered view that the trial Court was right to have dismissed the case of the Appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court delivered by Hon. Justice D.M. Igyuse on the 27th day of July, 2016 is hereby affirmed. Parties are to bear their cost.
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother HON. JUSTICE IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, PJCA. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein, that the Appeal has no merit. I also dismiss same and affirm the judgment of the trial Court delivered by HON. JUSTICE D.M. IGYUSE on the 27th day of July, 2016.
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, JCA and I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgment. To add my voice, it is beyond contention that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary duty of the trial Court and the Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the trial Court’s findings on the evidence. See the case of NNORODIM V. EZEANI (2001) 2 SC 145 and MOGAJI & ORS V. ODOFIN & ORS (1978) 3 SC 91.
As can be gleaned from the record of the Court that Paragraph 8 of Appellant’s pleadings contradicted his Statement of Account, hence, the trial Court held that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim by credible evidence, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s suit on the basis that he had no cause of action. It is clear that the trial Judge evaluated the facts and evidence, hence, came to the conclusion that the Appellant had no cause of action, therefore, I have no reason to disturb the findings made by the trial Court in this appeal. The trial Judge did not err.
Flowing from above, I too find that the Appeal is unmeritorious and therefore dismissed.
Appearances:
T.O.A.C. Kaakwagh-Tamen, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Mrs. M.E. Fayomi For Respondent(s)