SHEMOFEYO VENTURES LTD v. AMCON
(2021)LCN/15580(CA)
In The Court of Appeal
(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Tuesday, September 28, 2021
CA/AK/312/2019
Before Our Lordships
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal
James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
SHEMOFEYO VENTURES LIMITED APPELANT(S)
And
ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA (AMCON) RESPONDENT(S)
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Federal High Court, holden at Akure in Suit No. FHC/AK/CS/54/2013 delivered by Hon. Justice F.A Olubanjo on 7th May, 2019.
The judgment is a product of the suit brought by the Plaintiff/Respondent initially against two defendants including the appellant who was the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant was the Managing Director and alter-ego of the 1st defendant. The writ of summons endorsed with the statement of claim, and the witness statement on oath of the plaintiff’s sole witness was issued on 10th July, 2013. It was also accompanied with front loaded documents. The defendants filed their statement of defence. It was accompanied with the witness statement on oath of Mrs. Adetayo Alasoadura (the 2nd defendant) and front loaded documents. These were filed on 6th May, 2015. However, on 19th May, 2016, the 2nd defendant died. This fact was duly communicated to the Court by the defendants’ counsel via a letter dated 23rd June, 2016. (See pages 141-142 of the record of appeal). However, the Plaintiff/Respondent’s amended statement of claim which was filed on 26/10/16 did not reflect this development as the name of the 2nd defendant is still retained in the amended statement of claim and the accompanying plaintiff’s witness statement on oath of Mr. Victor Igabor equally filed on 26/10/2016 with front loaded documents.
However, the defendant/appellants’ further amended statement of defence, filed on 17/12/17 together with the witness statement on oath of Mr. Kolawole Olaseinde and front loaded documents reflects the fact of the death of the 2nd defendant, the name no longer being reflected therein.
In the aforestated amended statement of claim filed on 26/10/2016 the plaintiff claims as follows:
1. The sum of N790,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Fifty- Three Kobo) being the outstanding sum owed the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant as at the 1st of January, 2011, which indebtedness arose from the various credit facilities granted to the 1st Defendant and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant, which has remained unpaid.
2. Interest on the said sum of N790,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Million Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Fifty-Three Kobo) at the rate of 15% per annum from the 1st of April, 2011 until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until final liquidation of the indebtedness.
The defendant/appellant denied the entirety of the plaintiff’s claim in its further amended statement of defence filed on 7/12/2017. The plaintiff in reply to the further amended statement of defence, filed a reply on 01/03/17. The said reply is accompanied with plaintiffs further witness statement on oath of Mr. Victor Igabor which was equally filed on 01/03/17 (see pages 254-258 of the record of appeal). At this stage, it is important to note that in the course of the proceedings the further witness statement on oath was not adopted. Therefore, the reply to the further amended statement of defence was pronounced worthless and lifeless by the trial Judge in his judgment since it was deemed not supported by evidence and therefore goes to no issue. (See pages 409-410 of the record of appeal).
Now, the plaintiff’s claim denied, the plaintiff, as it were, was expected to prove same. Therefore, the sole witness adopted his witness statement on oath, and tendered several documents referred to in his witness statement on oath which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits. The defendant also adopted the witness statement of its sole witness. He tendered no Exhibit, as the only one he sought to be admitted was rejected by the Court.
On the close of evidence on both sides, counsel filed written addresses which were adopted, and thereafter, the judgment herein on appeal was delivered.
The defendant finds the judgment which was in favour of the plaintiff unsavoury, and decided to appeal against same.
The notice of appeal was filed on 02/08/19. The notice of appeal contains four grounds of appeal. The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted on 9/9/19.
The Appellant’s brief of argument, settled by Ogundolie Felix was filed on 26/10/20 and deemed properly filed and served on 4/11/20.
The Respondent’s brief of argument was settled by Kunle Gbolahan. It was filed on 4/2/21.
The briefs of argument were adopted on 30/06/21. J.O Disu adopted the Appellant’s brief of argument and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Kunle Gbolahan adopted the Appellant’s brief of argument and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. Submits that there being no reply to issues raised in the Respondent’s brief of argument, they should be deemed conceded. Refers to Sakati V. Bako (2015) LPELR-24739, and Nwankwo V. Yar’ adua (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518.
The Appellant donated three issues for determination in its brief of argument.
The issues are:
1. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that Dw1 is not competent to give evidence and thereby holding the evidence of Dw1 as unreliable and cannot be acted upon.
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent in the sum of N701,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and One Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira, Fifty-Three Kobo) at the rate of 17.5% per annum.
3. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that Exhibit G2 being evidence of dispatch by registered post is sufficient proof that Exhibit G1 was delivered to the Defendant/Appellant.
Argument on the Issues
Issue One
It is submitted for the Appellant that the lower Court was wrong when it held that Dw1 is not competent to give evidence, and has thus accessioned miscarriage of justice. Submits that on adopting his witness statement on oath it automatically became his evidence at the trial. It is further contended that Dw1 is a competent witness who had sworn that he had the consent and authority of the Appellant to swear to the witness statement on oath on behalf of the Appellant. Counsel cites and relies on the case of Saleh V. Bank of the North Ltd (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt 976) 316 at 327.
Submits further that the decision of the lower Court to treat the evidence of Dw1 as unreliable and reject same has led to the miscarriage of justice; that the lower Court’s decision that the pleadings of the Appellant is not backed by evidence goes to no issue. Counsel therefore urged this Court to set aside the decision of the trial Court.
Issue Two
Counsel faults the lower Court for giving judgment in favour of the Respondent. Submits that the lower Court did not give due consideration to the evidence adduced. Refers to the pleadings and the evidence on record as regards the interest rate, and paragraphs 17 (d), (e), (f) and 18 of the testimony of Dw1 to the effect that the Appellant pledged a total value of shares as securities for the loan being held by the Respondent to be in the value of N551,915,000 which far outstrips the loan. Counsel submits that while the plaintiff’s pleading on the rate of interest is 15% interest per annum, the lower Court gave judgment at the rate of 17.5% on the ground that the parties agreed that interest rate be pegged at 17.5% per annum which was not claimed on the pleadings and evidence.
Submits that a Court can only grant relief claimed by the party, reliance placed on the cases of; Simon Nwagu V. Elder Rufus Fadipe Paras G-B (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) Ezeonwu V. Onyechi (1996) LPELR-1212(SC), (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 438) 499, Opu–Ado V. Abere (2017) All FWLR (Pt 9100) 195 at 200.
Issue Three
Submits that the lower Court was in error and came to wrong decision when it held that Exhibit G2 being evidence of dispatch by registered post is sufficient proof that Exhibit G1 was delivered to the Appellant.
Points out that the lower Court agreed that there was no indication of when Exhibit G1 was received through Exhibit G2, yet it went ahead to hold that Exhibit G1 was received through Exhibit G2. Submits therefore that there is no evidence upon which the Court came to the conclusion it did. Counsel places reliance on Global Soap & Detergent Industries Ltd V. Sunshine Oil Chemical Development Co. Ltd (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1704) P 99 at 102. The Court is urged to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of the lower Court.
The Respondent donated a solitary issue for determination in its brief of argument framed as follows:
Whether in view of the evidence led before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge was right when he entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
Argument on the Sole Issue
It is for the Respondent who submitted that, it is trite law that an appellate Court will not disturb the findings of a lower Court once it is shown that the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence led before it. Submits that the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence before it in arriving at its judgment. On this submission, counsel relies on Kopek construction Ltd V. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt 1182) 618, Echo Ent. Ltd V. Standard Bank Ltd (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 116) 509 at 514, SPDC V. Okonedo (2007) All FWLR (Pt 368) 1104 at 1140.
Submits that the Appellant applied for facility in the sum of N500,000,000.00 which was approved and disbursed to it in two tranches. Refers to Exhibits A1, A2 and Exhibit D. Tendered Exhibit F to show that it had taken over the non-performing loan of the Appellant from the bank. Refers also to Exhibits G1 and G2 as evidence of delivery of letter of demand to the appellant. On Exhibit D, Counsel refers to entries of 28/9/07 and 27/11/07 to prove disbursement of the loaned sum to the Appellant’s account. Counsel submits that it was in view of the avalanche of documentary evidence that the lower Court held that the plaintiff proved the grant of loan facility of N500,000,000.00 to the Appellant and disbursement of N400,000,000.00 to it.
In regard to the trial Court’s finding on the evidence of Dw1, counsel submits that it is the primary responsibility of the trial Judge to assess and form an impression of a witness that testifies before it, and therefore an appellate Court will not interfere with findings of the trial Judge unless those findings are unreasonable. Refers to the lower Court’s findings on pages 417-418 of the record of appeal, to submit that the findings support the record of the Court. The decision of the lower Court to discountenance the testimony of Dw1, counsel further submits is sound, reasonable and ought not to be disturbed.
In reply to Appellants’ argument on its issue two, Respondent’s counsel, urges the Court to discountenance depositions in paragraphs 17 (d), (e), (f) and 18 because as held by the trial Court, the evidence of Dw1 is altogether unhelpful to the Appellant. Secondly, that the facts contained in the said paragraphs 17 (d), (e), (f) and 18 are bare and without any evidence. Submits that the Appellant averred that share transfer was duly executed but produced no document to show the transfer. That appellant also listed the amounts and values of the shares but produced no document to prove it. The Court, counsel submits was right not to give any consideration to the bare and unproven averments. Relies on Akinbade V. Babatunde (2018) 7 NWLR- (Pt 1618) 366 at 392. On the issue of interest rates, counsel relies on the documents which shows that interest rate was pegged at 17.5% as agreed by the parties, and refers specifically to Exhibits A2 and F.
Further submits that the best evidence is documentary evidence. Speaking to the Appellant’s argument on Exhibits G1 and G2, counsel submits in agreeing with the finding of the trial Court that once a document is sent by post as in the instant case, the presumption is that the document was delivered to the addressee. That the only evidence to rebut this presumption is for the Appellant to show that the document was not sent by registered post. Further submits that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that Exhibit G1 was not sent by post. That the presumption therefore enures in favour of the Respondent that the Appellant received Exhibit G1.
The Court is therefore urged to dismiss the appeal as unmeritorious.
The three issues coalesce to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the trial or lower Court. Therefore, the lone issue distilled by the Respondent for the determination of the appeal is apt. Therefore, it is adopted by me as the issue on which this appeal will be determined.
Resolution of the Sole Issue
To properly determine this issue calls for identification of the evidence on both sides. To put the issue in a clearer perspective, the lower Court held that the Dw1 is not competent to depose to the information he deposed to; therefore the evidence is unreliable. This finding has agitated the Appellant, and hence Ground one of its Notice of appeal from which its issue one in the appellant’s brief of argument is derived.
Dw1 deposed to his witness statement on oath before the commissioner of oath and paid the oath fee. In the course of proceeding, it was adopted as his evidence in chief, and he was duly cross-examined. The learned trial Judge who stated that he is not competent to depose to the witness statement on oath and to the information therein did not state what law makes Dw1 incompetent as a witness. Blacks law Dictionary, 12th Edition defines “incompetence” as: “1. The quality, State, or condition of being unable or unqualified to do something…”
For me, I have not seen any aspect of the Evidence Act, 2011, or any other Evidence law or any other law that makes Dw1 incompetent to depose to the witness statement of oath which he deposed and adopted as his evidence.
The lower Court’s holding on the status of the evidence of Dw1 is contained on pages 417–418 of the record of appeal where the trial Judge stated:
I must pause to examine the testimony of Dw1, a farmer, who could not establish any connection with the Defendant, nor could he convince this Court that he has sufficient knowledge of the relationship between Defendant and the Bank to be able to swear to the detailed information contained in his Statement on Oath which he adopted as his evidence in chief. It is one thing to swear to a Statement on Oath containing detailed information and to adopt same in Court, but it is more important, for that witness to show, while in Court that he actually has a knowledge of the contents of his Statement on Oath. Dw1 did not appear to know the business of the Defendant; he testified during cross-examination that “I think the loan was N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira)” so he was not even sure of the amount of loan approved. From his testimony during cross-examination it is obvious that he thinks the Defendant is Late Mrs. Alasoadura.
He testified that “The Defendant was just my adviser. I have no position in the Company”.
Further that “I cannot remember precisely the date the loan was granted or repaid”. and “No, I do not know the meaning of “Roll Over”.
I therefore hold that Dw1 is not competent to give the information stated in his Statement on Oath, as has been glaringly displayed during cross-examination. His testimony is unreliable and cannot be believed or acted upon by this Court. The Defendant’s pleadings are therefore not supported by evidence and goes to no issue”.
From what is on the record, the witness statement on oath, and from Dw1’s evidence under cross-examination, the trial Judge has every justification to say that his testimony is unreliable and cannot be believed and acted upon by the Court. However, there is no justification to say that he is not competent to give the information stated in his statement on oath. What I want to say without mincing words, is that it is one thing to come to Court to testify, and it is another thing for the testimony to produce the desired effect. In other words, Dw1 is competent to depose to whatever information he desires to, but it is another thing for it to have probative value.
In paragraph 3 of the witness statement of Mr. Kolawole Olaseinde (Dw1) which is located at pages 283–286 of the record of appeal, he deposed that he has the authority and consent of the defendant to make his statement on oath. The defendant in the matter at the time he deposed to the statement on oath is Shemofeyo Ventures Limited – a limited liability Company. Being a juristic person, it acts through natural persons. He could not have been authorized by a juristic person, and if it is a natural person, the name should have been disclosed.
Having adopted his witness statement on oath, he was cross-examined by counsel to the plaintiff. (See pages 389–391 of the record of appeal).
He was asked to tell the Court the business of the defendant. His answer is, that the defendant is the MD of Shemofeyo. When he was further asked whether he was in Court to give evidence because he knows the managing director of Shemofeyo, guess his answer. It is No.
Further asked “how much was the loan granted to the defendant in this matter”? Answer: I think it was N500,000.00. More interesting, he was asked:
Q: Can you tell the Court your position or the post you hold in the defendant?
Ans: she is just my adviser. I had no position in the company.
At the beginning of the introductory part of his evidence before he adopted his witness statement on oath, Dw1 told the Court that he is a farmer. From all these, I see Dw1 as nothing but an impostor. He might have gathered information from a source which he has refused to disclose to the Court, only God knows, and those he may probably be acting in concert with. The Appellant is a limited liability company, from the records. So it has no staff, no directors, nothing? I find it difficult to hide my surprise. I cannot see how the Appellant expects the Court to accord probative value to the evidence of somebody like this just because there is nothing in law that incapacitates him from going to the registry of the Court to depose to a witness statement on oath?
In sum, I cannot fault the lower Court for refusing to accord probative value to the evidence of Dw1. His evidence cannot therefore activate any of the averments in the defendant’s further amended statement of defence. The averments in the Respondent’s amended statement of claim are as good as not controverted.
I will at this stage consider the appellant’s argument on its issue three. The argument ended with the Appellant’s counsel urging the Court to hold that there is no evidence before the trial Court to come to the conclusion that Exhibits G1 was delivered to the Appellant more especially that there is pleadings and unchallenged evidence that the office of the Appellant had been demolished. The Court is urged to set aside the decision of the trial Court. But the Appellant has not proffered any argument on how and why the resolution of that issue in its favour can lead to the judgment being set aside. Be that as it may, in my resolution on the issue of competence or otherwise of evidence of Dw1, I did hold that the evidence lacks probative value to activate any of the averments in the further amended appellant’s statement of defence. Invariably, it has not been proved that the office of the Appellant was demolished. Therefore, holding on to that evidence to argue that Exhibit G2 does not prove that Exhibit G1 was received by the Appellant is not helpful to the Appellant. I am therefore in accord with the trial Judge when he also rejected the Appellant’s contention that Exhibit G1 was not received by it based on the same reasoning.
But beyond this reasoning, the lower Court also considered the issue based on law, and reached the following conclusion:
“In FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC VS AKIRI (2013) LPELR – (C.A.) the Court of Appeal Akure Division relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in NLEWEDIM VS UDUMA (1995) 6 NWLR (PART 402) PAGE 383 at 394 that there are 3 ways of proving the delivery of a letter, to wit:
1. By a dispatch book
2. By evidence of dispatch by registered post
3. By evidence of witnesses credible enough to testify that Defendant was served with its (SIC).
In Akiri’s case (Supra) the contention regarding service of Exhibit A revolved around a dispatch book. It is not the same in this case where there is proof or evidence of dispatch of the letter (Exhibit G1) by registered post (see Exhibit G2). Besides which, I have already found that Dw1’s testimony is unreliable and this extends to his evidence regarding the alleged non-existence of 128 Arakale Road at the relevant time. Thus on the authority of NLEWEDIM VS UDUMA (Supra) Exhibit G2 being evidence of dispatch by registered post is sufficient proof that Exhibit G1 was delivered to the Defendant. Defendant was therefore duly informed of the fact that Plaintiff took over the Defendant’s non-performing loan from Intercontinental Bank (now Access Bank) and cannot deny knowledge of same. I so hold.” (See pages 420–421 of the record of appeal).
I find the reasoning and conclusion agreeable to me, with nothing more to add.
I shall now deal with the Appellant’s complaint in relation to the judgment that was given in favour of the Respondent at the rate of 17.5% per annum from 01/04/11 until judgment and post judgment interest of 10% per annum until final liquidation of indebtedness. The Appellant’s complaint centres on the interest rate of 17.5% per annum. My attention will be focused on that as no such complaint is made in respect of post judgment interest of 10% per annum until final liquidation of indebtedness.
There is no doubt that the Respondent pleaded 15% from 1st April, 2013 until judgment (see paragraphs 26 and 28 (2) Respondent’s amended statement of claim). This is also reflected in the witness statement of oath of Victor Igabor which he adopted as his evidence in the case. However, as shown in Exhibits A2 and F, and also reflected in the judgment of the trial Judge (see pages 416-417 of the record of appeal) the interest on the loan transaction was 17.5%.
What this means is that there is variance between the Respondent’s pleading and evidence on the one hand and the documents tendered to prop up the pleading and evidence both in respect of 15% and 17.5% on the other hand. The law on this is very clear. Pleadings that is at variance with the evidence goes to no issue. See on this Eze V. Ene & Anor (2017) LPELR–4191 (SC) P 6 paras A–B, Yahaya & Anor V. Dankwanbo & Ors (2016) LPELR–48364 (SC), P 66, Paras B-E, Achonu V. Okuwobi (2017) LPELR–42102 (SC), Pp 28-29, Paras E-B.
The effect is that the Court must disregard both the 15% and 17.5% interest per annum. None of the two can be awarded to the Respondent. This is due to the negligence of the Respondent’s counsel. The law permits them to amend their pleadings even at point of judgment before judgment but they failed to do so.
The last, but not the least to consider, is whether the Respondent is entitled to judgment given in its favour in the sum of N701,583,545.53.
In this connection I once again visit my earlier conclusion on the evidence of Dw1. I did state that his evidence is without probative value and cannot activate the averments contained in the Appellant’s further amended statement of defence. I also noted that as a consequence the averments in the Respondent’s amended statement of claim are as good as not controverted. The only inference one can now draw from that is that there is nothing on the imaginary scale on the Appellant’s side for the determination of the Respondent’s claims. This is a situation in which, even though the Respondent must still as a claimant prove its case to succeed, it will do so on minimal proof. The settled principle of law is that whenever an issue of evidence comes from one side and this is unchallenged, it ought normally to be accepted on the principle that there is nothing to put on the other side of the balance, unless of course it is of such quality that no reasonable Tribunal should have believed it. So, when evidence goes one way, the onus of proof is discharged on a minimal proof. See Baba V. Nigerian Civil Aviation & Anor (1991) LPELR–692 (SC), P. 52, Paras A-D. Ogunjumo & Ors V. Ademolu & Ors (1995) LPELR–2337 (SC), Pp 23–24 Paras E-A, Asafa Foods Factory Ltd V. Alraine (Nig.) Ltd & Anor (2002) LPELR–570 (SC), P 29 Paras B-D.
The Respondent’s counsel submitted thus in paragraph 5.02 (pages 3-4) of the Respondent’s brief of argument:
“The Respondent tendered Exhibits A1 in support of its contention that the Appellant applied for a credit facility in the sum of N500,000,000.00. The Respondent also tendered Exhibit A2 in support of its pleadings that, Intercontinental Bank Plc (“the Bank”) approved the Appellant’s request for credit facility and indeed granted the Appellant a credit facility in the sum of N500,000,000.00. The Respondent also tendered before the lower Court Exhibit D, the Appellant’s statement of account which shows the disbursements of the sums of N200,000,000.00 in two (2) tranches. The Respondent also demonstrated before the lower Court, how the Appellant drew down and utilized the said credit facility. The Respondent tendered Exhibit F in support of its contention that it took over the non-performing loan of the Appellant from the Bank. Also in evidence are the Respondent’s solicitor’s Letters of Demand admitted and jointly marked as Exhibit G1. It is important to state that, the Appellant, despite receiving Exhibit G1, did not contest or deny its indebtedness which stood at the sum of N790,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Million Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Fifty-Three Kobo) as at 1st of January, 2011. (Exhibit G can be found at pages 249 – 250 of the Record of Appeal).”
Further to the above, the trial Judge also found as follows at page 419 of the record of appeal:
Mr. Disu, Learned Counsel for the Defendant, however valiantly pursued his client’s defence during cross-examination of Plaintiff’s sole witness and was able to extract from him the fact that Plaintiff, after acquiring the loan was able to dispose of the shares with which the loan was secured, and realized the sum of N89,000,000.00 (Eighty-Nine Million Naira) (see testimony of Pw1 under cross-examination). This sum according to Pw1 is reflected in Defendant’s Statement of Account with Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (the Plaintiff) which was not tendered before this Court. Be that as it may, it is in evidence that N89,000,000.00 (Eighty-Nine Million Naira) has been realized by the Plaintiff in its bid to liquidate Defendant’s indebtedness, and this sum shall be deductible from the total sum claimed from the Defendant.
The above is a fair assessment of the evidence adduced in support of the Respondent’s claim which was granted by the lower Court. Therefore, I am satisfied that on minimal proof, the respondent is entitled to the judgment as follows:
The sum of N701,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and One Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Fifty-Three Kobo) being the outstanding sum owed the Plaintiff by the Defendant as at 1st of January, 2011 which indebtedness arose from the various credit facilities granted to the Defendant guaranteed by its deceased Managing Director which has remained unpaid (after deduction of money realized from sale of shares used as security for the loan).
I shall draw the curtain here, having resolved all that is necessary to be resolved.
The appeal therefore succeeds in part. For the avoidance of doubt, the award of interest on the sum of N701,583,545.53 (Seven Hundred and One Million Five Hundred and Eighty-three Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Fifty-three Kobo) at the rate of 17.5% from 01/04/11 until judgment is hereby set aside.
This does not affect post judgment interest of 10% per annum until final liquidation awarded to the Respondent in the judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusions.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: My lord James Gambo Abundaga, JCA availed me with a copy of the judgment just delivered in draft before now.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at, and accordingly allow the appeal in part.
I abide by all consequential orders made including that as to costs.
Appearances:
J.O. Disu For Appellant(s)
Kunle Gbolahan For Respondent(s)
