CONSWELL NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2019)

CONSWELL NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC

(2019)LCN/13165(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 2nd day of May, 2019

CA/B/273/2016

RATIO

PLEADINGS: ADMITTED AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS NEED NOT BE PROVED
This is also premised on the principle of law that admitted averments in pleadings need not be proved since the object of pleadings is to shorten proceedings by ascertaining what facts are agreed so that evidence need not be led to prove them and the Court should accept such agreed facts as established. Put in another way, it is a cardinal principle in civil litigation that when parties have in their pleadings agreed on certain facts, there is no longer issue in dispute between them on such agreed matters because matters admitted needed no further proof. See KANO VS. OYELAKIN (1993) 3 SCNJ 65; MOZIE VS. MBAMALU (2006) 7 SCNJ 411; BUNGE VS. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 6 SCNJ 48, KYARI VS. ALKALI (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 724) 412. PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

PLEADINGS: HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ADMISSION IN A PARTY’S PLEADINGS
However, in deciding whether there is an admission in a party’s pleading which could entitle the adverse party to judgment thereof, it is germane to peruse the pleading as a whole and not just consider each paragraph in isolation. See TITILOYE VS. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 519, BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) 9 SCM 1.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

ADMISSION: THE NATURE OF A PROPER ADMISSION

It follows therefore that an admission must be clear, straight forward and unequivocal and should not be picked in isolation from a party’s pleadings. See STEEL BELL (NIG) LTD VS. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIONS & ORS. (2014) LPELR 23343 (CA), where this Court held at pages 48 to 49 as follows:
Thus, for a Court to be able to properly decide whether there was an admission in a party’s pleading, it is necessary to have a proper look at the said pleadings as a whole and not just to consider each paragraph in isolation. See TITILOYE VS. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 519. In other words, to ascertain whether there is express admission in a party’s pleadings the whole pleading must be examined. See BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 941) 261; ORODOEGBULAM VS. ORODOEGBULAM (2013) LPELR 20634 (CA). Thus, it is after the Court has done so and is satisfied that a party has clearly admitted the facts which the rights of the party making the claim is hinged that it can enter judgment as the need arises.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. CONSWELL NIGERIA LTD
2. MR. GABRIEL MEBAGHANJE – Appellant(s)

AND

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC – Respondent(s)

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Delta State, Warri Judicial Division, delivered by A.A. Onojovwo J., on the 31st day of May, 2016.

The Appellants herein were the claimants in the trial Court while the Respondent was the defendant. The Appellants had in paragraph 39 of the joint amended statement of claim filed on 2/4/2015 claimed against the Respondent as follows:
a. AN ORDER that the excessive charges of the sum of N1,011,064.44 (One Million, Eleven Thousand, Sixty four Naira Forty Kobo) on 1st Claimant’s account No. 2006424479 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of loan agreement between 1st Claimant and Defendant and is a product of wrong calculation.
b. An order compelling Defendant to allow 1st Claimant’s auditors to jointly carry out with Defendant a comprehensive audit and/or reconciliation of Defendant’s account to ascertain the amount actually owed by 1st Claimant to Defendant.
c. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants and/or privies from

auctioning, selling, disposing off and/or in any way whatsoever transferring any interest in 2nd Claimant’s landed properties at No. 21 Deco Road, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria to any person(s).
d. Any other suitable relief.

The Respondent in turn filed a statement of defence/counter claim wherein she counter-claimed against the Appellants in the following terms:
Whereof the Counter-claimant counter-claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
(1) An order of Court allowing the Counter-Claimant to exercise its power of sale as unpaid mortgagee under the Tripartite Deed of Legal mortgage registered as No. 33 at page 33 in volume MT. 23 of the Lands Registry in the office at Asaba, by selling the property known as No. 21 Deco Road, Warri, Delta State, which is subject-matter of the aforesaid Deed of Legal Mortgage known as 21 Deco Road, Warri, Delta State and covered by Deed of Assignment registered as No. 5 at page 5 Volume AT. 10 lands Registry at Asaba Delta State to a bona fide purchaser for value.
(2) An order restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, privies

howsoever described from disturbing, preventing, molesting and/otherwise frustrating the sale and/or transfer of title in and over the property known as 21 Deco Road, Warri, Delta State and covered by Deed of Assignment registered as No. 5 at page 5 volume AT. 10 Lands Registry at Asaba Delta State to a purchaser for value.
(3) The cost of this Counter-claim.
(4) And any other suitable relief.
ALTERNATIVELY
(1) An order compelling the Defendants to counterclaim to repay the sum of N55,340,389.46 to the Counter-Claimant being the 1st Defendant’s outstanding debit balance as at 28/11/2013 guaranteed by 2nd Defendant who has also failed to repay.
(2) Pre-judgment interest at the rate of 22% per annum from the 28/11/2013 to the date of judgment.
(3) Post-judgment interest at 20% per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is completely liquidated.
(4) The cost of this Counter-Claim.

Upon the conclusion of exchange of pleadings the Respondent filed a motion on notice on 2/2/2016 praying the Court for the following orders:
An order entering in part, judgment in favour of the Defendant/Applicant in

the sum of N26,123,165.88 (Twenty six Million, One Hundred Twenty three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty five Naira Eighty kobo) only against the claimants/Respondents.

The ground for the application was, that the claimants admitted their indebtedness towards the Defendant and this has made the present application imperative as same, if granted, will enhance a quick determination of the suit.

The Appellants however opposed the said application by filing a counter affidavit on the 8/2/2016. The parties subsequently filed and served their written addresses and in a ruling delivered by the learned trial Judge on the 31/5/2016 it was ordered as follows:
I am satisfied that upon a calm reading of the joint amended statement of claim as one whole document, the claimants fully, clearly, unambiguously and freely admitted being indebted to the defendant to the tune of N20,423,165.88 (Twenty Million, Four Hundred and Twenty three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty five Naira, Eighty eight Kobo). That fact no longer requires any proof. I am entitled to enter judgment against the 1st claimant the actual debtor and the 2nd claimant as

its guarantor. As far as I can see from the pleadings, all that is left for the Court to resolve is whether the defendant is entitled to the other sums of money added to the amount admitted by the claimants as interest and service charges.
In the light of the above, I find merit in this application and it is consequently granted. I hereby enter judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter-claimant in the sum of N20,423,165.88. (Twenty million, four hundred and twenty three thousand, one hundred and sixty five Naira eighty eight kobo).

The Appellants being dissatisfied with the said Ruling filed a Notice of appeal containing two grounds of appeal on the 1/6/2016. Briefs of argument were subsequently filed and exchanged in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The said briefs of argument were adopted and relied on at the hearing of the appeal on the 26/2/2019.

In the Appellants brief of argument filed on 3/2/2017 but deemed properly filed on 10/5/2019, a sole issue was formulated for determination as follows:
Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the averments in paragraph 9 of the Appellants

statement of claim amounts to an admission of entitling the Respondent to part judgment (sic) as claimed by it in its motion dated and filed on the 2/2/16

The Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 31/3/2017 but deemed properly filed on 10/5/2019. Therein two issues were formulated as follows:
(1) Whether the Appellants by their joint amended statement of claim admitted owing the Respondent?
(2) Whether the lower Court was right to have entered judgment in a lesser sum of N20,423,165.88 in favour of the Respondent

The above two issues are aptly captured in the sole issue raised in the Appellants brief of argument. I will therefore adopt same in the resolution of this appeal.

Arguing on the said issue, learned counsel for the Appellants referred to the Respondent’s motion on notice filed in the lower Court on 2/2/2016, which is predicated on the fact that the averment in paragraph 9 of the Appellants joint amended statement of claim amounted to an admission of indebtedness to the Respondent.

Quoting from the said paragraph 9 of the joint amended statement of claim, it was

submitted that it does not constitute an admission by the Appellants if the whole paragraphs therein were read together. This he argues would have shown that the Appellants disputed the entire sum being claimed by the Respondent and which sum was borne out of a wrong calculation wherein the sum of N1,011,064.44 was erroneously added to the loan granted to the 1st Appellant.

Secondly, that the Appellants complained of excess and irregular charges for which they employed the services of Guiderite Consulting Limited, a financial consulting firm to study and critically review all its loan accounts with the Respondent.
Furthermore, learned counsel referred to the ruling of the learned trial Judge at page 191 of the record to submit that the issue formulated therein by the learned trial judge was not the issue argued by the parties and the issue which arose from the Respondent’s application.

It was further contended that the allegation of an admission in a particular paragraph of a parties pleadings cannot be made out without considering the whole pleadings of the parties. He relied on the following cases: KWARA HOTELS LTD. VS. ISHOLA

(2012) FWLR (PT. 135) 759; MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLIMITED VS. ASUAH (2002) FWLR (PT. 107) 1196 and BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) All FWLR (PT. 273) 1 at 154.

It was further asserted that what the lower Court did whilst considering other paragraphs of the pleadings which are not evidence before the Court and treating them as evidence amounts to hearing the case instalmentally without testing each party’s averment with cross-examination. He therefore urged this Court to allow the appeal.

In replying to the Appellants submissions, learned counsel for the Respondent argued the two issues raised in the Respondent’s brief together wherein he traced the history of the proceedings in the lower Court to submit that a perusal of paragraph 9 of the Appellants statement of claim will reveal that they did not deny owing the Respondent but agreed that what they owe is the sum of N26,123,165.88 and which sum they never claimed that they have repaid or liquidated. While on the other hand the Respondent in its extant statement of defence and counter-Claim counterclaimed for the sum of N55,340,389.46 against the Appellants.

Learned counsel then referred to Order 19 Rule 4 and 6 (1) of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 as well as the case of MOSHESHE GENERAL MERCHANTS LTD VS. NIGERIA STEEL PRODUCTS LTD (1987) All NLR 309 on the concept of admission by a party and what the Court is expected to do upon an application by the adverse party.

Learned counsel also referred to the appellants averments in paragraphs 9,10,11 and 13 of their joint amended statement of defence to further submit that the Appellants did not deny that they are indebted to the Respondent in the sum of N26,123,165.88.

He further referred to paragraphs 27 and 29 of the Appellants counter affidavit wherein it was deposed that they have paid the sum of N5,700,000 out of the sum of N26,123,165.88 being owed by them and not that the said amount paid was in total liquidation of their indebtedness to the Respondent.

Learned counsel also contended that the learned trial Judge paid attention to other paragraphs of the joint amended statement of claim before coming to the correct conclusion that the Appellants admitted owing the sum of N26,123,165.88 less the sum of N5,700,000 already

paid by them and which facts shows their intention to clear their indebtedness.

He also submitted that the settled principle of law is that facts that are admitted need no further proof and this obviates the need for calling evidence to further buttress the said admission as exemplified in Order 19 Rules 4 and 6 which provided for a means of saving precious time and energy as well as resources. The following authorities were cited in support: MOSHESHE GENERAL MERCHANT LTD VS. NIGERIA STEEL PRODUCTIONS LTD (supra) at 320; ASABA TEXTILE MILLS PLC VS. BONA TEXTILE LTD (supra); IBRAHIM VS. FBN (2013) All FWLR (PT. 694) 135; ALI VS. NDIC (2015) All FWLR (PT. 780) 1209 at 1228; SALAWU VS. YUSUF (2007) All FWLR (PT. 384) 230 at 252.

It was further submitted that a holistic reading of the joint amended statement of claim as the trial Judge rightly did, shows that the Appellants admitted owing the Respondent the sum of N26,123,165.88 less the sum of N5,700,000.00 which by simple arithmetic gives a balance of N20,423,165.88 and which sum the trial Court entered as judgment in favour of the Respondent. On the Appellants contention that the lower

Court ought not to have granted amount less than that claimed by the Respondent in its application, it was submitted that this was an erroneous and misleading argument because the law is that a Court can grant an amount less than that claimed by a party but not more as held in ADEDOYIN VS. IGBOBI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. (2014) LPELR (CA) and A.G. FEDERATION VS. A.I.C.C. LTD (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 675) 293.

Also, on the argument by the Appellants that the complaint of excess and irregular charges should have stopped the lower Court from entering judgment in favour of the Respondent. It was submitted by learned counsel that by virtue of Order 19 Rule 6(1) of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, the Court is not obliged to wait for the determination of any other question or issue before giving judgment based on admission of either party to a suit. Therefore, once there is an admission of the whole or part of a claim, the Court can enter judgment based on the admitted sum, the joinder of issues notwithstanding, vide ASABA TEXTILE MILLS PLC VS. BONA TEXTILE LTD (supra). It was then urged on this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Now the main bone of contention is whether it was right for the learned trial Judge to have entered judgment in favour of the Respondent upon its application based on the averment in paragraph 9 of the joint amended statement of claim which connotes an admission of indebtedness to the Respondent in the sum of N26,123,165.88 without considering the pleading as a whole. The said paragraph 9 of the joint amended statement of claim reads thus:
(9) 1st claimant avers that as at the end of June, 2010, 1st claimant was owing for three loans given to it at different times in the sum of N4,200,000.00, N11,923,165.88, and N10,000,000.00 respectively. In all, 1st claimant was owing Defendant the sum of N26,123,165.88 (Twenty-three Million, One Hundred and Twenty three Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty five Naira, Eighty-eight Kobo) as at June 31st 2010.

On the issue of admissions of facts, Order 19 Rules 4 and 6(1) of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 provides thus:
19:4: The Judge may on application, at a pre-trial conference or at any other stage of the proceedings where admissions of facts have been made, either on the

pleadings or otherwise, make such orders or give such judgment as upon such admissions a party may be entitled to without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.
19:6(1): Where admissions of facts are made by a party either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties and the Court may give such judgment or make such order on the application as it thinks just.
The above set out provisions are very clear and unambiguous to the effect that where a party to a suit admits certain facts either in his pleadings or otherwise, a party to whose advantage it falls can apply to the Court for judgment to be entered or an order made with respect to the admissions as he may be entitled to. This should be done without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties. In other words, notwithstanding the existence of any other question to be resolved between the parties to a suit, the Court hearing the matter can enter judgment

or make an order with respect to any set of facts admitted by a party to the suit as justice of the case demands.
This is also premised on the principle of law that admitted averments in pleadings need not be proved since the object of pleadings is to shorten proceedings by ascertaining what facts are agreed so that evidence need not be led to prove them and the Court should accept such agreed facts as established. Put in another way, it is a cardinal principle in civil litigation that when parties have in their pleadings agreed on certain facts, there is no longer issue in dispute between them on such agreed matters because matters admitted needed no further proof. See KANO VS. OYELAKIN (1993) 3 SCNJ 65; MOZIE VS. MBAMALU (2006) 7 SCNJ 411; BUNGE VS. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 6 SCNJ 48, KYARI VS. ALKALI (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 724) 412. Furthermore, in JOSHUA OGUNLEYE VS. BABATUNDE ONI (1990) 4 SC 130, it was held by the Supreme Court that, all matters not denied in the pleadings whether raised in the statement of claim or statement of defence are taken as admitted because facts emerging from pleading, raising new matters and throwing new light on the

adversarys averment must be denied. If not denied, they are taken as admitted because there is no element of surprise or embarrassment.
However, in deciding whether there is an admission in a party’s pleading which could entitle the adverse party to judgment thereof, it is germane to peruse the pleading as a whole and not just consider each paragraph in isolation. See TITILOYE VS. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 519, BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) 9 SCM 1. It follows therefore that an admission must be clear, straight forward and unequivocal and should not be picked in isolation from a party’s pleadings. See STEEL BELL (NIG) LTD VS. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATIONS & ORS. (2014) LPELR 23343 (CA), where this Court held at pages 48 to 49 as follows:
Thus, for a Court to be able to properly decide whether there was an admission in a party’s pleading, it is necessary to have a proper look at the said pleadings as a whole and not just to consider each paragraph in isolation. See TITILOYE VS. OLUPO (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 519. In other words, to ascertain whether there is express admission in a party’s pleadings

the whole pleading must be examined. See BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 941) 261; ORODOEGBULAM VS. ORODOEGBULAM (2013) LPELR 20634 (CA). Thus, it is after the Court has done so and is satisfied that a party has clearly admitted the facts which the rights of the party making the claim is hinged that it can enter judgment as the need arises.

I have carefully read through the averments in the Appellants joint amended statement of claim including the reliefs sought. I have earlier in this judgment reproduced paragraph 9 which the Respondent relied on in making the application for judgment. I am however minded to read it along with other paragraphs of the Appellants pleading with a view to appraising the order of the learned trial Judge. The relevant paragraphs are 9,10, 11, 13, 23,24,25,26 and 27. They are herein-below set out:
9. 1st Claimant avers that as at the end of June, 2010, 1st Claimant was owing Defendant for three loans given to it at different times in the sum of N4,200,000.00, N11,923,165.88 and N10,000,000.00 respectively. In all, 1st Claimant was owing Defendant the aggregate sum if N26,123,165.88 (Twenty

Six Million, One Hundred and Twenty three Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty five Naira Eighty-eight kobo) as at June 31st, 2010.
10. 1st Claimant avers that on the 1-7-2010, through its letter dated 1-7-2010, it applied to the Defendant for all its outstanding loans of the aforementioned N4,200,000.00, N11,923,165.88 and N10,000,000.00 to be renewed. Claimant shall at the trial rely on 1st Claimants letter to the Defendant dated 1-7-2010.
11. 1st Claimant further avers that as at the 1-7-2010 when it applied for renewal of the loans, Defendant’s Branch Manager told its managing Director, 2nd Claimant that its outstanding indebtedness in all the loans was N26,123,165.88 (Twenty six Million, One Hundred and Twenty three Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty five Naira eighty Eight kobo).
13. 1st Claimant avers that Defendant in its aforementioned letter dated 13-7-2010 wrongly calculated 1st Claimant’s outstanding loan to be N27,134,230.28 (twenty seven million, one hundred and thirty four thousand, two hundred and thirty naira twenty-eight kobo) instead of N26,123,165.88 (twenty six million, one hundred and twenty three thousand,

one hundred and sixty five naira eighty-eight kobo). By the wrong calculation, Defendant wrongly added a whooping sum of N1,011,064.44 (one million, eleven thousand, sixty-four naira, forty-four kobo) to the Claimant’s outstanding loan. Unfortunately, 1st Claimant did not immediately notice the wrong calculation as at the time of signing the acceptance column in the said Defendants letter dated 13-7-2010.
23. 1st Claimant avers that it did not receive any statement of account until about two months later. 1st Claimant further avers that immediately it received the statement of account, it wrote a letter dated 25-3-2013 to the Defendant to inform Defendant that it had just received the statement of account and was reconciling same with its records. 1st Claimant also in the same letter appealed to the Defendant for the loan to be restructured to a tenor of 18 months. To show its seriousness, 1st Claimant on the said 25-3-2013 paid the sum of N3,000,000.00 (three million naira) into the Defendant’s Classified Asset Management (CAM) Recovery account Number 2014899360 vide Defendant’s deposit teller No. 7616452 with a Zenith Bank Cheque

No. 71693759. Claimant will at the trial rely on the following:-
(a) Its letter to Defendant dated 25-3-2013.
(b) Defendant deposit teller No. 76164552 showing the payment of N3,000,000.00 to the defendant on 25-3-2013.
(c) Photocopy of Zenith Bank Cheque No. 71693759.
24. 1st Claimant further avers that its letter dated 25-3-2013 was replied by the Defendant through Defendant’s letter dated 23-4-2013. In the said letter, Defendant requested the 1st Claimant to pay the sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty million naira) as full and final settlement of the debt within the period of April, 2013 through March, 2014. Claimants will at the trial rely on the Defendant’s letter to it dated 23-4-2013.
25. 1st Claimant avers that after its aforementioned letter dated 25-3-2013, it made the following payments to the Defendant’s CAM account number 2014899360.
25-3-2013 … … N3,000,000.00
7-6-2013 … … N500,000.00
27-8-2013 … … N500,000.00
7-10-2013 … … N1,700,000.00
N5,700,000.00
26. Claimant will at the trial rely on the following documents in proof of the aforementioned payments.

a. Defendant’s deposit teller No. 11352436 of 27-8-2013.
b. Photocopy of Zenith Bank Cheque No. 69574395 dated 27-8-2013.
c. Users Gases Limited (affiliate company of 1st Claimant) letter of Ecobank Manager dated 7-6-2013 for the sum of N500,000.00 to be transferred to the Defendant.
d. Computer printout of Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement Plc sowing the transfer of N1,700,000.00 from 2nd Claimant to Defendants CAM account.
27. 1st Claimant avers that when it noticed that it could not meet up with the high demands of the Defendant, 2nd Claimant went to the Defendants Headquarters in Lagos to hold a meeting with Defendants CAM team. 1st Claimant further avers that the CAM team advised him to write an application to the Defendant as to what amount of money 1st Claimant will be able to pay in addition to the monies already paid, i.e N5,700,000.

A combined reading of the above set out averments points to the facts that the 1st Appellant is not disputing being indebted to the Respondent to the tune of N26,123,165.88 out of which they have already repaid the total sum of N5,700,000.00. The bottom line here is that

the Appellant conceded to the fact that their indebtedness is in the range of N26,123,165.88 less the sum of N5,700,000 repaid within the months of March 2013 and October 2013.

The learned trial Judge in making a finding on the issue held at pages 193 to 194 of the record as follows:
It is clear from the foregoing that the Claimant admit that they were indebted to the defendant to the tune of N26,123,165.88 (twenty six million, one hundred and twenty-three thousand, one hundred and sixty five naira, eighty-eight kobo) as at June 30th 2010. They have admitted by paragraphs 25, 26, 27 of the joint Amended Statement of Claim that they have been able to pay the Defendant only N5,700,000 (Five million, seven hundred thousand) out of the N26,123,165.88 they were owing it as at 30th June 2010. In other words, by simply arithmetic deducting N5,700,000.00 from that amount, they were still owing N20,423,165.88 (twenty million, four hundred and twenty three thousand, one hundred and sixty five naira, eighty-eight kobo) as at 19/11/2013, the date this action was filed. I am not unmindful of the Claimant’s averment in paragraph 14 wherein they

alluded that they made series of payments to the Defendants to service the loan after the loan was refused? That fact of series of payments without dates and particulars would appear to have been cancelled out or neutralized in paragraph 27 where the Claimants specifically pinned the total amount paid out of the debt to the Defendant at N5,700,000.00. I am satisfied that upon a calm reading of the Joint Amended Statement of Claim as one whole document, the Claimants fully, clearly, unambiguously and freely admitted being indebted to the Defendant to the tune of N20,423,165.88 (Twenty million, four hundred and twenty three thousand, one hundred and sixty five naira, eighty-eight kobo). That fact no longer requires any proof. I am entitled to enter judgment against the 1st Claimant the actual debtor and the 2nd Claimant as its guarantor. As far as I can see from the pleadings, all that is left for the court to resolve is whether the Defendant is entitled to the other sums of money added to the amount admitted by the Claimants as interest and service charges. In the light of all of the above, I find merit in this application and it is consequently

allowed. I hereby enter judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter Claimant in the sum of N20,423,165.88 (twenty million, four hundred and twenty three thousand, one hundred and sixty five naira, eighty-eight kobo).

From the above set out portion of the Ruling of the learned trial Judge, I am of the view that he did not ignore the other paragraphs of the Appellants pleading, neither did he treat paragraph 9 in isolation before reaching his conclusion. He properly appraised the averments in the said pleadings and rightly observed that the 1st Appellant was indebted to the Respondent to the tune of N26,123,165.88 out of which a repayment of the total sum of N5,700,000.00 was made between March and October, 2013. Hence he rightly deducted the said sum of N5,700,000 already paid back before he entered judgment based on the balance of the amount owed which is now reduced to N20,423,165.88. In other words, based on the admission by the 1st Appellant that it is only indebted to the Respondent in the sum of N26,123,165.88 out of which it subsequently paid back the total sum of N5,700,000 as can clearly be gleaned from the pleadings, the learned

trial Judge entered judgment for the Respondent in consonance with the provisions of Order 19 Rules 4 and 6 (1) of the High Court of Delta State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 as well as the already cited authorities.

On the complaint by the Appellants counsel that the issue formulated by the learned trial judge is not in consonance with the issue that arose in the Respondent’s application and argued by parties before the Court. The learned trial Judge had in the ruling at page 191 of the record of appeal stated thus:
In agreement with counsel for the parties, it is my view that the sole issue for determination in this application is whether the claimants by their pleadings admitted being indebted to the defendant to the tune of N26,123,165.88 (twenty six million, one hundred and twenty three thousand, one hundred and sixty five naira eighty eight kobo) or any other lesser sum.

The answer herein is not farfetched. The said issue as formulated by the learned trial Judge was derived from the sole issue formulated by each of the parties in their written addresses. In the Respondent’s written address at page 173 of the record

the following sole issue was formulated:
WHETHER THIS HONOURABLE COURT CAN ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF FACT(s) ADMITTED BY THE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THEIR JOINT AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

In the Appellants written address at page 177 of the record the sole issue formulated reads thus:
WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THIS HONOURABLE COURT CAN ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS ON THE BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS JOINT AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE STATEMENT OF CLAIM

From the above set out issues as formulated by the parties, I do not see the basis for any complaint with regard to the way the learned trial Judge couched his own issue. To my mind, it rather presented a fuller picture of the issue arising from the Respondent’s motion for judgment given the facts as pleaded in the Appellants joint amended statement of claim.

I am therefore reluctant to view the position taken by the learned trial Judge differently because he acted within the ambit of the law and also found

justified, the Respondent’s application to enter judgment based on the extent of the admission made by the 1st Appellant.

As earlier stated, an admission in pleadings basically puts an end to the requirements of proof. This is because by admission, the parties no more join issues on the matter. All matters not denied in the pleadings whether raised in the statement of claim or statement of defence are taken as admitted. See NWANKWO VS. NWANKWO (1995) 5 SCNJ 44 and JOSHUA OGUNLEYE VS. BABATAYO ONI (1990) 4 SC 130.

The learned counsel for the Appellants had also contended that judgment ought not to be entered for the Respondent given the complaint of excess and irregular charges for which they employed the services of Guide Rite Consulting Limited, a financial consulting firm, to study and review all its loan accounts with the Respondent.
The simple answer to that is that the entry of judgment based on the admission of the 1st Appellant did not end the issues in contention which led to the commencement of the suit. The other matters where issues were joined by the parties are still open for adjudication and this reality found expression in

the order of the learned trial Judge where in the Ruling it was further stated as follows at page 194 of the record:
As far as I can see from the pleadings all that is left for the Court to resolve is whether the Defendant is entitled to the other sums of money added to the amount admitted by the Claimants as interest and service charges.

The implication therefore is that there is still plenty of room for the parties to ventilate their grievances and convince the Court by evidence that they are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Incidentally, the principal claim of the Appellants as per paragraph 39(a) of their joint amended statement of claim is for:
39(a) An order that the excessive charges of the sum of N1,011,064.44 (One Million, Eleven Thousand, Sixty four Naira, Forty four kobo) on claimants loan account No. 2006424479 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of loan agreement between the 1st claimant and Defendant and is a product of wrong calculation.

The opportunity of being granted the said claim has not been shut off with the entry of the judgment based on admission. In fact the reliefs

sought by the Appellants as per their pleadings are still very much viable upon proof at the hearing. The learned trial Judge has rightly thrown the door open for this possibility and had actually done justice in compliance with relevant principles of law and I have no cause to hold a contrary view.

The sole issue for determination as raised by the Appellants is hereby resolved against them. On the whole, this appeal is found to be unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed.

The Ruling of the High Court of Delta State delivered on the 31st day of May, 2016 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.: I have read hitherto the erudite judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother HON. JUSTICE SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI JCA, I completely agree with my Learned Brother that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed. The ruling and orders of the Learned Trial Judge are hereby affirmed. I abide by the order as to costs.

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read in draft form the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji,

JCA. I agree that the lone issue for determination ought to be resolved against the appellants.

For the elaborate reasons given by my learned brother, I also resolve the sole issue in the appeal against the appellants and affirm the decision of the trial Court. There is no order for costs.

Appearances:

E.A. Akpoguma
For Appellant(s)

Jim Okodaso with him, A. Adedeji For Respondent(s)

Appearances

E.A. Akpoguma For Appellant

AND

Jim Okodaso with him, A. Adedeji For Respondent