U.L.O. CONSULTANTS LTD v. LA-AFOS GLOBAL LINKS LTD
(2022)LCN/16524(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, February 04, 2022
CA/A/204/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal
Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
U.L.O. CONSULTANTS LIMITED APPELANT(S)
And
LA-AFOS GLOBAL LINKS LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT ATTRACTS A HIGH EVIDENTIAL VALUE
In Chiagorom v Diamond Bank (2012) 44, N.L.L.R (Pt. 140) 335–159 (460 – 461, para H-D, P.464 Paras. C-D), the Court held that:
“Unsigned documents should attract little or no evidential weight. Though many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. It is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of “document” that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed.”
Also in Enoch v FAB-REM Project International [2014] 49 N.L.L.R (Pt. 162) 294-447 (403-404, Paras G-G P 406, Paras E-G) the Court held that:
“The question whether or not an unsigned document attracts any evidential weight was answered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Abeje & Anor v Apeke (2013) LPELR-20675(CA) where it was succinctly put thus:
Unsigned documents our Courts have held, should attract little or no evidential weight. See Jinadu & Ors v. Israel Esurounbi-Aro & Anor (2009) 9 NWLR part 1145 page 55 at p.81. Indeed many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. See Amaizu v Nzeribe (1989) 4 NWLR pt. 118 page 755.
It has to be said that though that it is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of “document” that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed… it is obvious from the above decision that unsigned document may be worthless as the general rule, but there are exceptions to that general rule, in that in some instances such documents may carry some evidential weight… see also Awolaja v Seatrade GBV (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 520 at p. 532 per Daniel-Kalio, J.C.A. (P. 23, paras. B-F).” PER AMADI, J.C.A.
KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the F.C.T. High Court, Abuja, in suit no. FCT/HC/CV/1324/17; Coram: Hon. Justice A.S. Adepoju, delivered on 12th day of October, 2018.
The Appellant was the defendant at the lower Court (F.C.T High Court, Abuja) while the Respondent was the plaintiff and filed a suit by way of Writ of Summons on 31st March, 2017. In consequence, the defendant filed a Statement of Defence on 6th June, 2017, and the plaintiff replied to the defendant’s statement of defence on the 13th of June, 2017. The plaintiff in the said writ which is accompanied with a statement of claim sought for the following reliefs:
(a) The sum of N7,500,000.00 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) being the outstanding indebtedness of the Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of the job orders executed for the Defendant.
(b) N1 Million Naira being cost of this action and solicitors fees.
(c) 10% interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until the entire liquidation of the judgment debt.
The trial Court heard the case and while delivering its judgment (see pages 139-164 of the Record of Appeal) held in favour of the plaintiff who is the respondent before this Court by granting the plaintiff the following:
i. That the defendant is to pay immediately the sum of N7,500,000.00 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) being the outstanding indebtedness to the plaintiff in respect of the job orders executed for the defendant.
ii. That 10% post-judgment interest is also awarded on the judgment sum until the liquidation of the entire judgment sum.
iii. N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) awarded as cost.
Dissatisfied with the judgment to the claimant, the Defendant/Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 18th October, 2018 which contains four (4) grounds of appeal as follows:
GROUND 1:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows: “Any traverse that does not sufficiently deny the claim of the claimant and put him to the strictest proof is not a sufficient traverse. There were no sufficient denials of the claimant’s claim in the defendants pleading, there were equally pleadings that were not supported by evidence and the evidence given did not support the pleadings.
GROUND 2:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:
“Court agrees that the Defendant did not lead evidence to support paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Statement of Claim same paragraphs are deemed abandoned”.
GROUND 3:
The trial Judge erred in law when he entered judgment for the claimant not on the strength of the claimant’s case but relying on the perceived weakness of the Defence.
GROUND 4:
The trial Judge erred in law by relying on inadmissible evidence to enter judgment for the claimant when the Court held that “the authorities on unsigned documents are not relevant as the defendant did not allege forgery.”
The record of appeal was transmitted on 18/3/2019 but deemed properly filed and served on 7/7/2021. The Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 24/1/2020 and deemed on 7/7/2021. The Respondent’s brief of argument was filed 16/3/2020 but deemed on that same 7/7/2021, while the appellant’s reply brief was filed on 3/6/2020 but also deemed on that 7/7/2021.
In his brief of argument, the learned counsel for the Appellant S. M. Nwosu Esq., raised 4 (four) issues determination as follows:
a. Whether the Appellant, upon a community reading of the Statement of Defense joined issues with the Respondent on the substance of the Respondents’ claim. (Distilled from Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal).
b. Whether the Appellant led evidence in support of the totality of its defense, particularly the Appellant’s averments in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Statement of Defense. (Distilled from Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal).
c. Whether a Respondent who did not sign the acceptance of offer letter in the nature of Exhibits A6-A16 and without proof of execution of the contract can rely on the unsigned documents to sustain a claim. (Distilled from Ground 4 of the Ground of Appeal).
d. Whether the Respondent having regard to the totality of evidence adduced at the trial proved its case on the balance of probabilities as to entitle it to the judgment of the lower Court. (Distilled from Ground 3 of the Ground of Appeal).
In respect of issue 1, counsel submitted that the Appellant and the Respondent joined issues on all the essential ingredients of a binding contract, that is to say, offer, acceptance, consideration and legally binding agreement. In respect of the transaction and the job orders relied upon by the Respondent (Exhibits A2 – A16) counsel argued that they were issued by former staff members and some disgruntled employees with fictitious names without the authority, consent and knowledge of the Appellant.
Counsel further argued that the Appellant out rightly disowned awarding any contract to the Respondent and dis-owned those who purportedly issued Exhibits A2 – A16 and that the trial Judge was therefore wrong when the Court held that the Appellant never denied awarding the Respondent contract in the cumulative sum of N16,369,400.50 (Sixteen Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Naira, Fifty Kobo). Continuing, learned counsel argued that the Respondent going by the Appellant’s outright denial that it never authorized the issuance of the job orders and that it does not know the Respondent, had the burden to establish the essential ingredients of a valid and binding contract and further on, that the Respondent had the burden to establish that there was a valid offer as represented by the job orders (Exhibit A2 – A16).
Counsel submitted that the trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Appellant made a general denial and not a specific denial of the Respondent’s claim. That an emphatic denial by the Appellant that it does not know the Respondent and did not issue or authorize the issuance of the job orders as some were issued fictitious names while others were by ex-staff who had no authority to do so; cannot be said to be a general denial.
Continuing, the learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant did not award or authorize the award of any of the jobs claimed to have been executed by the Respondent from 2013 to 2014 and has no record of any such contract.
Counsel finally submitted that the Appellant sufficiently denied the claim of the Respondent such that the burden of proof placed on the Respondent to prove its case was not discharged by any express or implied admission by the Appellant.
In respect of issue 2, the learned counsel while disagreeing with the position held by the trial Judge that the defendant has failed to discharge the evidential burden placed on it, argued that the job orders relied upon by the Respondent and acknowledged by the Appellant, some were in the name of former employees of the defendant who have long left the employment of the defendant since 2007, while others were acknowledged in fictitious names unknown to the Appellant, and that the job orders none of which was issued by either the purchasing or procurement manager. Counsel relied on the case of Iyere Bendel Fed & Flour Mill (2008) 7-12 SC 151 at 163 – 183, and submitted that the Appellant can only be bound and liable for the authorized acts of its servants and agents committed in the course of their duties.
That the Appellant has no record of Exhibits A2 – A16 and that the Appellant also tendered its solicitors’ letter which was written in response to the Respondent’s solicitor’s letter (Exhibit B3) and it was made clear in the letter that the Appellant has no record of Exhibits A2 – A16. That the Appellant does not know the Respondent and has no record of any dealing with the Respondent and that prior to the Respondent solicitor’s letter of demand, there were no correspondences between the Respondent and the Appellant, and that the only documentary evidence available is the disputed Local Purchase Orders (LPO) Exhibits A2 – A16 and nothing more.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court misconstrued DW1’s response that the Appellant has record of the solicitor’s letter which forwarded Exhibits A2 – A16 to mean that the Appellant had record of the transactions alleged by the Respondent prior to the solicitor’s letter.
Finally on this issue, counsel submitted that Exhibits A2-A16 on the face value disclosed substantial discrepancies and irregularities which were pointed out by DW1.
In respect of issue 3, learned counsel argued that there is no evidence of the execution or performance of the jobs from the Respondent and that in effect, the Respondent failed to show through credible evidence that it furnished consideration for Exhibits A6 – A16.
Continuing, counsel submitted that the Respondent who failed to sign Exhibits A6 – A16 and also failed to establish the existence of any consideration or benefit conferred on the Appellant pursuant to Exhibits A6 – A16, cannot sustain any based on them (exhibits A6 – A16). In continuation, counsel posited that the situation would have been different if the Appellant was shown to have signed and that consideration had moved from the Respondent to the Appellant, then the absence of execution by the Respondent would not have been fatal to the transaction or contract. That the Respondent must prove that consideration had moved from the Respondent to the Appellant before it could succeed on the basis of Exhibits A6 – A16. Counsel referred to the case of MTN (NIG) Ltd v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 427 at 456.
Finally on this issue, counsel submitted that the Respondent failed to establish the nexus between the Respondent and one “Lati (Carpenter)” to whom Exhibit A16 was issued to for the sum of N20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand) and the amount in Exhibit A16 was altered from N35,000.00 (Thirty-Five Thousand) to N20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand) without any endorsement and no explanation was offered at the trial.
In respect of issue 4, counsel relied on the case of Orji v. Doji Textiles Mills Ltd & 3 Ors (2009) 12 S.C. (Pt. III) 73 at 89 Lines 1 – 14 to submit that the position of the law is that a Claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness or absence of the defense. In effect, counsel argued that since the Appellant denies knowing the Respondent and have no record of any business transactions including that of the job orders (Exhibit A2 – A16) with the Respondent, the implication is that there was no valid and enforceable contract between the Respondent and the Appellant and that since the Respondent claims under a contract which validity and existence is denied by the Appellant, he has the onerous task of establishing the existence of a valid and enforceable contract against the Appellant.
Counsel further argued that Exhibits A2 – A16 which are job orders, are in the form of offer and for every offer, there must be an acceptance for a valid and binding contract to exist. That PW1 under cross-examination agreed that the Respondent never signed the acceptance column of Exhibits A6 – A16, meaning that the Respondent, even if for purposes of argument, that Exhibits A6 – A16 were issued by the Appellant, never accepted the offers contained in the LPOS (Exhibit A6 – A16). That Claimant therefore had the burden to prove the following:
1. That it was the Appellant or its authorized agent that made the offer, that is, issued the Local Purchase Orders.
2. That the Respondent accepted the offer.
3. That the Respondent performed its obligation under the contract by executing the Local Purchase Orders (LPOS) in full and to the satisfaction of the Appellant.
4. That the Respondent has failed to pay for the work done by the Respondent.
Continuing, counsel argued that there was no evidence led to show that any of the several persons who signed Exhibits A2 – A16 were not called by the Respondent to show they were staff of the Appellant with the capacity to issue Local Purchase Orders, or had previously acted for the defendant in that capacity, and therefore, the Appellant had not been shown to have held the persons who issued Exhibits A2 – A16 out as having or possessing such capacity or authority.
Arguing further, learned counsel submitted that the Respondent through PW1 made it clear that the Local Purchase Orders which the Respondent signed were those for which payments were made, that is Exhibits A2-A5 and that outside Exhibits A2-A5, the rest of the Exhibits A6 – A16 were not signed or endorsed by the Respondent as the columns provided for acceptance of the LPO in Exhibits A6 – A16 were vacant and unsigned.
The effect according to counsel is that the offers contained in Exhibits A6 – A16 were never accepted by the Respondent while citing the case of Akinyemi v. Odua Investment Co. Ltd (2012) 1 S.C. (Pt. iv) 1, in support. Learned counsel submitted therefore that the Respondent cannot claim on an offer which it never accepted as there was a burden on the Respondent who claimed under Exhibits A2 – A16 to satisfy the Court that it executed the orders contained in the Local Purchase Orders to the satisfaction of the Appellant and that the Appellant failed to pay. That there was nothing from the Respondent to show that it executed the work described in Exhibits A2 – A16 outside the oral testimony of PW1, which is not sufficient. That DW1 in his testimony stated that the normal procedure adopted by the Appellant when it issues out Local Purchase Orders or engages sub-contractors in the performance and execution of its contracts are that where goods were to be delivered, there will be delivery notes but where it involves the execution of work, there will be certificates of completion, and that this piece of evidence was unchallenged and un-contradicted.
In conclusion, learned counsel urged this Court to hold as follows:
1. That the Appellant and Respondent as defendant and claimant respectively before the lower Court joined issues in their pleadings on all material facts in dispute.
2. That the Appellant as defendant led evidence in support of pleadings on all material facts and did not expressly or impliedly admit to claims of the Respondent/claimant.
3. That the claimant must succeed on the strength of its own case and that going by the totality of evidence adduced by the Respondent before the trial Court, the Respondent failed woefully to establish its case.
4. That the Respondent who failed to execute Exhibits A6 – A16 and also failed to adduce credible evidence of execution of the contract cannot sustain any claim based on the unsigned documents.
5. Finally, counsel urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismiss the claimant’s suit.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Abimbola Kayode Esq., filed in his Brief of Argument adopted the 4 (four) issues raised for the Appellant and argued as follows:
In respect of issue 1, learned counsel argued that the law is well settled that when issues are joined on the pleadings, evidence is needed to prove them and the person upon whom the burden of establishing that issue lies must adduce satisfactory evidence to substantiate it. Where there is no such evidence, the issue must be resolved against him, counsel referred to the case of Egharevba v. Osagie (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299 at 315 Paras B – D. Counsel argued further that the Respondent at the lower Court stated in her statement of claim that she carried out several contract works for the Appellant based on job orders issued to her by the Appellant of which in proof of this assertion, the Respondent tendered Exhibits A1 – A16 which were received and admitted in evidence at the trial by the Court. That the job orders were executed for the Appellant totaling N16,369,004.50k (Sixteen Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, Four Naira, Fifty Kobo only) out of which the Appellant paid the sum N8,869,004.50k (Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand, Four Naira, Fifty Kobo only) leaving a balance of N7,500,00 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) unpaid. That the Respondent’s solicitor demanded for the payment of the said outstanding balance of N7,500,000 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) from the Appellant without success (Exhibit B1). That Exhibit B1 was responded to by the Appellant’s solicitor vide Exhibit B2, wherein the Appellant’s solicitor requested for documentary proof of the jobs executed by the Respondent for the Appellant pursuant to which Exhibit B3 was dispatched to the Appellant’s solicitor by the Respondent’s Solicitor.
Learned counsel submitted that the Respondent proffered cogent and verifiable evidence that the Appellant awarded the contracts vide Exhibits A2 – A16 to the Respondent. That the Appellant’s submissions that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent and that the Appellant never issued job orders, or that jobs were purportedly issued by former staff members of the Appellant in fictitious names without the authority, consent, and knowledge of the Appellant are hollow having regards to the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced by the Respondent at the Court below. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
In respect of issue 2, learned counsel submitted that the Respondent asserted positively at the trial Court that the job orders were issued by the Appellant which he duly executed and completed. That the total sum for the job orders was N16,369,004.50k (Sixteen Million, Three Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, Four Naira, Fifty Kobo only) out of which the Appellant paid N8,869,004.50k (Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand, Four Naira, Fifty Kobo only) leaving a balance of N7,500,000 (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) unpaid. That the Respondent at the trial Court proffered oral and documentary evidence in support of these assertions culminating in the submission in evidence of Exhibits A2 – A16, while the Appellant on its part pleaded that the job orders were never issued by the Appellant and that it is the Managing Director/General Manager of the Appellant that signs job orders.
Counsel added that at the trial, the Appellant failed to call any of the alleged authorized persons, i.e. Managing Director or General Manager or the purchasing/procurement officer in support of the Appellant’s contention in its defense that the job orders were not properly issued nor executed by the Respondent. Counsel in consequence submitted that the inability of the Appellant to speak life into her pleadings and the refusal of the Appellant to sufficiently deny tine plaintiff’s claim that led to the unassailable findings of the Court below.
In respect of issue 3 and in answer to the Appellant’s submission that the Respondent did not sign Exhibits A6 – A16 showing that the Respondent accepted the local purchase orders, and secondly, that the Respondent did not show any evidence of the execution or performance of the jobs, and that the Respondent failed to show through credible evidence that it furnished consideration for Exhibits A6 – A16. Counsel argued that the Appellant’s counsel missed the point because the evidence on record are that the Respondent duly executed and completed the job orders for which part payment was made by the Appellant to the Respondent. Counsel further argued that the evidence of the Appellant’s witness on who were the authorized persons to issue or approve job orders is at variance with the Appellant’s pleadings. In this respect, counsel submitted that the Appellant in her pleading at paragraphs 6, 7, & 10 as (pages 41 42 of the record of appeal) stated that the authorized persons are procurement officer, purchasing or procurement manager but in its evidence at the trial, the Appellant’s witness stated that it is the managing director or the general manager and that as a result, where evidence is at variance with pleadings; the evidence therefore goes to no issue and ought to be discountenanced. Counsel cited the case of Woluchen v. Gudi (1981) NSCC (Vol. 12) Pg. 214 at 227 to buttress this submission. Counsel urged this Court to discountenance the Appellant’s submission and resolve this issue against the Appellant.
In respect of issue 4, that a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness or the absence of the defense. Learned counsel submitted that the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence on record from Respondent’s witness in his testimony was that the Respondent do not normally sign job orders before they are executed and that aside, the Respondent’s witness did content further in his evidence at the trial Court that the Appellant do not issue certificate of completion, as they are subcontractors to the Appellant and do not have business with Delta State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the documentary evidence (Exhibits A2 – A16) tendered by the Respondent supports the oral evidence of the Respondent at the Court below and as such the trial Court was right in taking action on them because the documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess the oral testimony of the Respondent’s witness and cited the case of Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) Pg. 384 at page 403 – 404 Paras H – A to buttress this submission. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below.
In his reply to the Respondent’s brief, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant’s statement of defense was not in the form of general denial vague, but met the case of the Respondent going by the state of the pleadings, and joined issues with the Respondent on the substance of its claim. Counsel submitted that the Court below merely explored and searched for the weaknesses in the defense and spared little or no energy in considering the strength of the claimant’s case. That the Respondent’s legal submission cannot provide the basic evidential foundation which the claimant’s case lacked. Counsel finally urged this Court to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment of the lower Court.
COURT’S DECISION
As noted before, the counsel for the Appellant raised 4 (four) issues for determination while the counsel for the Respondent adopted the four (4) issues raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
Issues one and two relate to the pleadings and evidence before the trial Court, the said issues one and two are subsumed by issue four which issue is; whether the Respondent having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial Court proved its case on the balance of probabilities as to entitle it to judgment of the lower Court.
I shall therefore resolve the issues involved in this appeal by resolving issues three and four as follows:
Issue three is whether a respondent who did not sign the acceptance of the offer letter in the nature of Exhibits A6 – A16 and without proof of execution of the contract can rely on the unsigned documents to sustain a claim.
In Chiagorom v Diamond Bank (2012) 44, N.L.L.R (Pt. 140) 335–159 (460 – 461, para H-D, P.464 Paras. C-D), the Court held that:
“Unsigned documents should attract little or no evidential weight. Though many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. It is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of “document” that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed.”
Also in Enoch v FAB-REM Project International [2014] 49 N.L.L.R (Pt. 162) 294-447 (403-404, Paras G-G P 406, Paras E-G) the Court held that:
“The question whether or not an unsigned document attracts any evidential weight was answered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Abeje & Anor v Apeke (2013) LPELR-20675(CA) where it was succinctly put thus:
Unsigned documents our Courts have held, should attract little or no evidential weight. See Jinadu & Ors v. Israel Esurounbi-Aro & Anor (2009) 9 NWLR part 1145 page 55 at p.81. Indeed many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. See Amaizu v Nzeribe (1989) 4 NWLR pt. 118 page 755.
It has to be said that though that it is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of “document” that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed… it is obvious from the above decision that unsigned document may be worthless as the general rule, but there are exceptions to that general rule, in that in some instances such documents may carry some evidential weight… see also Awolaja v Seatrade GBV (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 520 at p. 532 per Daniel-Kalio, J.C.A. (P. 23, paras. B-F).”
It is important to state here that Exhibits A2 – A16 are job orders. They were issued by the Appellant. The witness of the Appellant recognized them as emanating from the Appellant. They were duly signed. The complaint of the Appellant is that those that signed them were not authorized to do so. That some of the previous employees’ of the Appellant and some disgruntled employees signed them. The trial Court found and correctly too, that the onus of proof was on the Appellant to show a specimen of the authorization or one signed by an authorized person. Also that, there was no pleading about former employees who signed the document, or the disgruntled staff and what made them disgruntled. In view of the fact that they were signed by the maker, they can no longer be classified as unsigned documents.
Be that as it may, the documents are Local Purchase Orders. A local purchase order is usually an instruction to perform a duty or function. It is like a purchase instruction. The moment the duty or order is supplied or performed, it cannot be vitiated on the ground that the supplier or performer of the function, did not sign the order or instruction. The case of the Appellant is that because they were not signed by the Respondent, there was no acceptance of the offer. However, a contract does not always be in written form to be enforceable, without more ado, this issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
Now to issue four, the trial Court at page 163 of the record (25 of the judgment) held as follows: “The entire gamut of the defendant’s pleadings showed that there was no sufficient denial of the Plaintiff’s claim. Some of the facts pleaded were equally not substantiated and in some instances where evidence was led, the evidence does not support any fact pleaded.”
The statement of defence in this case is contained at pages 41 – 42 of the record. The pleadings are scanty and more of general denials of the pleadings of the Respondent. The holding of the trial Court above cannot be faulted. This issue is also resolved against the appellant in favour of Respondent, this appeal is lacking in merit. It ought to fail and it has failed and dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Court delivered on 12/10/2018 is hereby affirmed. N100,000 cost is awarded to the Respondent to be paid by the Appellant.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Kenneth I. Amadi, (Ph.D), JCA.
My learned brother has adequately dealt with all the issues generated in this appeal. I am in agreement with his reasoning and conclusion thereof. I adopt his conclusion as mine.
I accordingly dismiss this appeal for lacking in merit. I abide by the consequential orders inclusive of costs.
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment of my learned brother, KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, Ph.D, JCA just delivered. I agree with his conclusions that the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
I abide by the consequential order of costs assessed at N100,000.00 only to the Respondent to be paid by the Appellant.
Appearances:
S.M. Nwosu, Esq. with him, Tasmunotonye Ekundayo, Esq. and O.K. Ekenia, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Abimbola Kayode, Esq., FICMC, FCIArb (UK) For Respondent(s)