ARCADIA PETROLEUM (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. NORTHSIDE APARTMENT LTD & ANOR (2022)

ARCADIA PETROLEUM (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. NORTHSIDE APARTMENT LTD & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16248(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022

CA/A/98/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Bature Isah Gafai Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. ARCADIA PETROLEUM (NIG) LTD 2. MOHAMMED ASIBELUA APPELANT(S)

And

1. NORTHSIDE APARTMENT LTD 2. MUHAMMAD JIBRIN RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE PURPOSE OF UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE

My lords, the proceedings of the Court below leading to the ruling/judgment being appealed against in this appeal was one strictly conducted under the Undefended List procedure. Thus, it was simply a battle fought purely on affidavits and documentary evidence of the parties as placed before the Court below. Going by the grounds of appeal and the issues distilled therefrom by the parties in their respective briefs, it seems clear to me that the fulcrum of this appeal is the vexed issue of when proceedings under the Undefended Cause List procedure can properly be invoked by a party and when should a judgment be entered and/or when should such a claim be transferred to the General Cause List.
In law, the Undefended List procedure is usually aimed at dispensing with dispatch cases which are virtually uncontested and/or cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that a Claimant is entitled to judgment and it is inexpedient to allow a Defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay. It is designed to secure quick justice and avoid the injustice likely to occur when there is no genuine defense on the merits to the Claimant’s case. It is to shorten the hearing of a suit where the claim is for liquidated sum. Thus, it is for the plain and straight forward cases to the joys and the interest of justice and not for the devious and crafty Defendant whose joy to unnecessarily delay the payment of his just debt is timely cut short by due process of law. See Uba & Anor V. Jargaba (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247 per Tobi JSC. See also Dio – Global Concepts Nig. Ltd. V. Access Bank Nig. Plc. (2016) LPELR-40789 (CA) per Georgewill JCA; Dala Air Services Ltd V. Sudan Airways Ltd (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 238) 697; Agro Millers Limited V. Confidential Merchant Bank (Nig) Plc (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 525) 469. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

In Mat Holdings Ltd V. U.B.A Plc. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 803) 71 at p. 90, the relationship between the Undefended List procedure and the right to fair hearing was explained inter alia thus:
‘The rules of Court providing for cases to be placed under the undefended list are deliberately designed to allow for quick dispensation of justice to avoid unnecessarily clogging our legal system with proceedings which could otherwise have been easily and quickly disposed of. Although the need for fair hearing should not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, the procedure should not be frustrated or thwarted by fanciful or general defenses directed at frustrating the Plaintiff out of judgment he well deserves. A case should not be transferred from undefended list to the general cause list merely on the whims and caprices of a Defendant who merely finds the words fair hearing a convenient as well as handy slogan.’
See also Aso Motel Kaduna Ltd V. Deyemo (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 978)80 at pp. 121-122; Dio-Global Concepts Nig. Ltd. V. Access Bank Nig. Plc. (2016) LPELR-40789 (CA) per Georgewill, JCA. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THEPOSITION OF THE COURT WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE COURT TO SCRUTINIZE THE CLAIM OF A CLAIMANT TO PLACE IT UNDER THE UNDEFENDED LIST IS HAMPERED BY THE AUTOMATIC PLACING OF THE CLAIM UNDER THE UNDEFENDED LIST

It is also true in law, and as was aptly submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants, that where the opportunity of the Court to scrutinize the claim of the Claimant to place it under the Undefended List is hampered by the automatic placing of the claim under the Undefended List by operation of the Rules of the Court, it does not relieve the Court of its primary duty to vet the claims of the Claimant first before considering the Notice of Intention to Defend. Indeed, it would amount to a charade to skip this duty and commence the consideration of the case with the Notice of Intention to Defend since the primary onus was on the Claimant to show at least a prima facie case of his claim before the need for the Defendant to defend himself would arise. See Intercontinental Bank Ltd V. Brifina Limited (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316)1. See also Okeke V. NICON Hotels Ltd. (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 216 at p. 222. See also Pwol V. Union Bank Plc (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 631 at p. 635.
In Jolayemi V. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 322, where, Uwaifo JSC, had so succinctly put this position of law in its proper perspective thus:
“I realise that a Defendant need not prove anything if the Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case at least prima facie, in order that the necessity of the Defendant to confront the case so made out may arise” PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT

My lords, the law is and has always been that once the conclusion reached by a trial Court, or any Court for that matter, is correct then even a wrong reason for the correct conclusion and/or finding, which is the pathway to the conclusion, will not by itself alone vitiate the correct finding and/or conclusion of the Court below. Therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusion reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. It follows that it is only and only if the conclusion reached and/or the finding made itself turns out to be wrong that an appellate Court would be under a duty to intervene to make proper findings and reach correct conclusions. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 at p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46; Agbon-Ojeme .V. Selo-Ojeme & Ors (2020) LPELR-49688 (CA) per Georgewill JCA. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling/judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Coram: I. U. Bello J., in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/346/2010: Northside Apartment Ltd. & Anor V. Arcadia Petroleum Nig. Ltd. & Anor delivered on 21/5/2013, in which judgment was entered under the undefended list on the claims of the Respondents as Claimants against the Appellants as Defendants.

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the said ruling/judgment and had appealed against it vide their Notice of Appeal filed on 21/6/2013 on four grounds of appeal. See pages 63-67 of the Record of Appeal. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 13/3/2018 but was deemed as properly compiled and transmitted on 1/3/2022. Subsequently, an Additional Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 19/11/2020 but was deemed as properly compiled and transmitted on 1/3/2022. The Appellants’ brief was filed on 4/10/2018 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/3/2022. The Respondents’ brief was filed on 24/2/2021 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/3/2022. The Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed on 1/3/2022 and was deemed as properly filed on the same date, 1/3/2022.

At the hearing of the appeal on 1/3/2022, Dr. Michael Ngidi, learned counsel for the Appellants, appearing with John Iyafokhai Esq., adopted the Appellants’ brief and the Reply Brief as their arguments in support of the appeal and urged the Court to allow the appeal. On his part, Moses Ideh Esq., learned counsel for the Respondents adopted the Respondents’ brief as his arguments in opposition to the appeal and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

By a Writ of Summons filed on 29/11/2010 before the Court below, the Respondents as Claimants claimed against the Appellants as Defendants, the following reliefs, to wit:
1. The sum of N100,000,000.00 only due and payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs being the repayment of the loan facility granted to the Defendants by the Plaintiffs
2. The interest on the said sum of N100,000,000.00 only at the rate of 30% per annum from the 1/8/2008
3. Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% per annum until the whole judgment sum is liquidated
4. Cost of this litigation. See pages 1-2 of the Record of Appeal.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
The gist of the case of the Respondents as Claimants before the Court below as can be gleaned from the averments in the pleadings of the Respondents and the affidavit in support of the application for judgment under the Undefended List as well as their documentary Exhibits A and B in the Record of Appeal was that sometime in 2008, the 2nd Respondent, the Managing Director of the 1st Respondent had a financial transaction with the 2nd Appellant, the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant, wherein the 2nd Respondent transferred the sum of 682,500.00 United States Dollars, then at the rate of N121.00 to a United States Dollar, to the 2nd Appellant. The 2nd Respondent paid the said sum and sundry sums totaling N100,000,000.00 to the 2nd Appellant who in turn promised to repay it in one instalment. However, when it was time to repay and based on the repayment schedule agreed between the parties, the Appellants issued a Standard Bank Cheque No: 00491302 dated 29/07/2008 in the sum of N100,000,000.00 to the Respondents, which upon presentation for payment was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the Appellants’ account.

Upon the dishonoring of the Cheque, the 2nd Respondent made several efforts, appeals and entreaties to the 2nd Appellant to settle their indebtedness but the Appellants refused to fulfil their obligation and became evasive and incommunicado, following which the Respondents instructed their lawyers to write a demand letter. The Appellant still failed to make good their indebtedness to the Respondents, whereupon the Respondents commenced an action against the Appellants before the Court below. See pages 1-10 of the Record of Appeal. See also pages 1-3 of the Additional/Supplementary Record of Appeal.

The gist of the case of the Appellants as Defendants before the Court below as can be gleaned from their Notice of Intention to defend and the supporting Affidavit, as well as Documentary Exhibits in the Record of Appeal, was that the 2nd Respondent was the 1st Appellant’s account Officer at Bond Bank and subsequently at Aso Savings and Loans Plc and by virtue of his position helps in facilitating the purchase and conversion of foreign currency for the 1st Appellant for its businesses cum financial transactions. Whenever the 2nd Respondent receives instruction from the Appellants to purchase foreign currency it is carried out by the 1st Respondent, which consequently debits the 1st Appellant’s account at the Bank.
Sometime in 2008, the Appellants instructed the 2nd Respondent to purchase the dollar equivalent of a sum in excess of N250,000,000.00, which instruction was duly executed. However, after the execution the 2nd Respondent informed the Appellants that the credit balance in the 1st Appellant’s account could not adequately cover the requested amount at the time of the transaction and the 2nd Respondent and claimed that he had provided counterpart funding to augment the dollar equivalent required by the Appellants for the said transaction.

The Appellants verily believed the 2nd Respondent to be truthful as has been their usual practice and issued a Standard Chartered Bank Cheque No 00491302 to the tune of N100,000,000.00 to the 1st Respondent, which is owned and managed by the 2nd Respondent. However, after issuing the cheque, the 1st Appellant decided to obtain a copy of its statement of accounts from the Bank and therein discovered that the amount which the 2nd Respondent claimed owed and due to him as a result of the transaction was overly inflated and exaggerated, and immediately the 1st Appellant countermanded the cheque and instructed its bankers not to honor it, and the said cheque was returned unpaid though the account was properly funded.

The Appellants made several efforts to reconcile accounts and resolve the exact outstanding amount due to the Respondents and efforts to amicably resolve this dispute resulted in a Terms of Settlement signed by the parties, wherein the Appellants agreed to offset the amount purportedly claimed by the Respondents in installments for peace to reign as the Respondents had already made a complaint to the EFCC against the Appellants. It was in furtherance of the terms of settlement that the Appellants paid first installment to the Respondents, who failed to keep their own part of the terms of settlement. See pages 11-22 of the Record of Appeal.

The Writ of Summons and all other processes of the Respondents as Claimants were served on the Appellants as Defendants. In response, the Appellants filed their Notice of Intention to Defend on 21/11/2011 along with their affidavit in support of the Notice of Intention to Defend. See pages 11-22 of the Record of Appeal. On 21/5/2013, the Respondents’ suit was heard under the Undefended List of the Court below and on the same date, 21/5/2013, the Court below proceeded to deliver its ruling entering judgment on the claims of the Respondents as Claimants against the Appellants as Defendants, hence this appeal. See pages 24-25 and 35-39 of the Record of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In the Appellants’ brief, two issues were distilled as arising for determination from the four grounds of appeal, namely:
1. Whether the Court below was wrong to have relied heavily and quoted as judgment of the Court against the Appellants the terms of the settlement agreement, Exhibit MA1, referred to in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the Appellants’ Notice of Intention to Defend the suit, when the Appellants have raised the existence of a dispute thereof, by stating that the Respondents breached or failed, neglected and/or refused to comply with the terms of the said settlement agreement, Exhibit MA1? (Distilled from Grounds one and three)
2. Whether the Court below breached the crucial judicial duty that is fundamental in arriving at a just decision, indeed by failure of the Court below to examine whether it was proper to place the Respondents’ action on the Undefended List and that same occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he refused to transfer this suit to the General Cause List given the circumstances of this case? (Distilled from Grounds two and four)

In the Respondents’ brief, two issues were also distilled as arising for determination in this appeal, namely:
1. Whether the Court below was right when it relied on Exhibit MA1, the terms of settlement between the parties, to arrive at its decision?
2. Whether the Court below was right when it found that the affidavit of the Appellant disclosed no defence on the merits and heard the matter under the undefended list procedure?

I have taken time to consider the averments in the pleadings and the affidavit of the Respondents as Claimants in the application under the Undefended List of the Court below. I have also considered the affidavit of the Appellants as Defendants in support of their Notice of Intention to defend. I have also considered the submissions of learned counsel to the parties in their respective briefs in the light of the findings and the decision reached in the ruling of the Court below entering judgment on the claims of the Respondents as Claimants against the Appellants as Defendants. Upon an anxious consideration of all the above, I am of the view that the apt issues arising for determination in this appeal are the two issues as distilled in the Respondents’ brief, a consideration of which, in my view, would invariably involve a consideration of the two issues as distilled in the Appellants’ brief. The two issues as distilled in the Respondents’ brief are more precise, concise and elegant than the two issues as distilled in the Appellants’ brief, hence my adoption of the latter. However, I shall consider both issues together, since they are interwoven, and resolve them in one fell swoop.

ISSUES ONE AND TWO TAKEN TOGETHER
(COVERS BOTH APPELLANTS’ AND REPONDENTS’ ISSUES 1 AND 2)
Whether the Court below was right when it relied on Exhibit MA1, the terms of settlement between the parties, to arrive at its decision AND whether the Court below was right when it found that the affidavit of the Appellant disclosed no defence on the merits and heard the matter under the undefended list procedure?

APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On his issue one, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the Court below was wrong to have relied heavily on Exhibit MA1, the terms of the settlement, entering judgment against the Appellants and contended that by their affidavit in support of the Notice of Intention to Defend the Appellants raised the existence of a dispute arising from the Respondents’ breach, failure, neglected and/or refusal to comply with the terms of Exhibit MA1 notwithstanding that the Appellants had complied with same and urged the Court to hold that had the Court below properly evaluated the affidavit of the Appellants it would not have arrived at such a perverse finding that the Appellants failed to disclose a defence on the merit against the claims of the Respondents, which finding had occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the Appellants and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below and to transfer the Respondents’ suit to the General Cause list of the Court below. Counsel relied on MC Inv. Ltd V. CI. and CM Ltd (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 1; UTC (Nig) Ltd V. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 103) 224; Jammal Eng. Co. Ltd V. MISR (Nig) Ltd. (1972) 4 SC 79; Olubusola Stores V. Standard Bank (Nig) Ltd (1975) 4 SC 51.

It was also submitted that on the affidavit evidence of the Appellants it was shown that the claim of the Respondent was contentious and would require trial on the merit and contended that the judgment of the Court below would have been different if the Respondents’ suit had been transferred to the General Cause List in view of the unresolved dispute raised by the Appellants in paragraph 4(n) of the Appellants Notice of Intention to defend and urged the Court to hold that the Court below erred gravely when it failed to see the triable issues raised in Exhibit MA1 which it rather perversely used to enter judgment against the Appellants under the Undefended List and allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below.

It was further submitted that the Court below was wrong when it held that Exhibit MA1 was an admission of the Respondents’ claim for N100,000,000.00 which is contrary to the sum of $1,225,000.00 United States Dollars as contained in Exhibit MA1 and contended that the Court below therefore, granted to the Respondents a relief they did not claim against the Appellants and urged the Court to hold that this error had occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the Appellants and to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on unreported judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 19/12/2014 in Appeal No. SC/301/2007: Alhaji Mohammed Buhari Awodi & Anor. V. Mallam Saliu Ajagbe; The Nigeria Air Force V. Shekete (2002) 12 SCNJ 35 at pp. 52-53.

On his issue two, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the Court below failed to examine whether it was proper to place the Respondents’ suit under the Undefended List and contended that the failure had occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants by the refusal to transfer the Respondents’ suit to the General Cause List and urged the Court to hold that the Court below erred in law in granting the unsubstantiated claim of the Respondents and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below and to remit the Respondents’ suit to the Court below to be heard and determined on the merit in a manner that would not breach the right of the Respondents to fair hearing under the General Cause List, which was denied to them by the Court below. Counsel referred to Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011 and relied on Osuade Adeyinka Akinbade & Anor V. Ayoade Babatunde & Ors (2017) LPELR-43463 (SC); at pp. 47-48 per Eko JSC; Engr. Mustapha Yunusa Maihaja V. Alhaji Ibrahim Gaidam & Ors (2017) LPELR-42474 (SC) at pp. 61-62 per Eko, JSC.

It was also submitted that in law a claim for recovery of debts involving an account is tricky and discrepancy between the amount claimed and the figure that can be ascertained from the supporting evidence raises a contentious issue and contended that such an issue can only be resolved by trial on the merit where the actual indebtedness of the Defendant cannot be ascertained from the evidence available without a resort to other extrinsic accounting source and urged the Court to hold that such a ground constitutes a defence on the merit capable of transferring the claim to the General Cause List for trial on the merit, and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Intercontinental Bank Ltd. V. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 1.

It was further submitted that in law where the opportunity of the Court to scrutinize the claim of the Claimant to place it under the Undefended List is hampered by the automatic placing of the claim under the Undefended List by operation of the Rules of the Court, it does not relieve the Court of its primary duty to vet the claims of the Claimant first before considering the Notice of Intention to Defend and contended that in law it would amount to a charade to skip this duty and commence the consideration of the case with the Notice of Intention to Defend and urged the Court to hold that the Court below was in grave error when it failed to vet the claim of the Respondents to see if they had disclosed prima facie case, which the Respondents failed to make out, but merely proceeded to consider the defence put forward by the Appellants and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Okeke V. NICON Hotels Ltd. (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.586) 216 at p. 222; Pwol V. Union Bank Plc (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 631 at p. 635; Duru V. Nwosu (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24 at p. 48; Daodu V. NNPC. (1998) 1 SCNJ 95 at p. 106; Odukwe V. Ogunbiyi (1998) 6 SCNJ 102 at pp. 116 -118; Okonkwo V. Okonkwo (1998) 7 SCNJ 246 at p. 254; Intercontinental Bank Ltd V. Brifina Limited (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316)1.

RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On issue one learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that in law oral evidence will not be admitted to prove, vary or alter or add to the term of any contract which has been reduced into writing when the document is in existence except the document itself since documentary evidence is the best evidence and contended that the written evidence of commencement of payment of the debt by the Appellants as in Exhibit MA1 was a clear admission of their indebtedness to the Appellants since if the Appellants did not owe or was even disputing their indebtedness there would be no need for them to commence the payment of the debt in instalments and urged the Court to hold that in law the allegation of failure by the Respondents to discontinue their suit against the Appellants alone does not amount to a defense on the merit or triable issues to warrant the admitted claim of the Respondents to be transferred to the General Cause List for trial on the merit and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the judgment of the Court below. See The Attorney-General, Bendel State & 2 Ors V. United Bank for Africa Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (pt. 37) 547 at p. 565.

It was also submitted that the Court below was right in relying on the unequivocal admission of their indebtedness by the Appellants in Exhibit MA1, even put forward by them before the Court below and contended that the Appellants neither disputed their own Exhibit MA1 before the Court below nor before this Court in this appeal and urged the Court to hold that in law the Appellants, as well as the Respondents, are bound by the terms of Exhibit MA1 voluntarily into by them and the Court below was perfectly right to look into and make use of documents properly in arriving at its findings and conclusions and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the correct judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Jikantoro & Ors V. Dantoro & 6 Ors (2004) 5 SCNJ 152 at p. 177.

It was further submitted that the crux of the decision of the Court below was that the Appellants did not disclose any defense on the merit as was required of them by law in a claim under the Undefended List even going by own admission of their indebtedness to the Respondents and urged the Court to hold that there was nowhere the Court below ordered the payment of the debt either in Naira and or United State Dollars by simply giving its nod to the terms of the settlement as duly executed between the parties and put in evidence by the Appellants themselves, the totality of which evidence is properly evaluated in arriving at its correct and sound conclusion that the Appellants did not disclose any defense to the claims of the Respondents against them, and to dismiss the appeal for being frivolous and affirm the sound judgment of the Court below.

On issue two learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the Court was perfectly right when it held without any equivocation that the affidavit of the Appellant, along with their Exhibit MA1 annexed thereto, did not disclose a defense on the merits as required of them by law in a claim under the Undefended Cause List and contended that in law for an affidavit to constitute a defense on the merit, the Defendant must set out the defense in the affidavit and not to simply say he has a defense and urged the Court to hold that the Appellants’ affidavit did not show or disclose any reasonable grounds of defense that there was any or some dispute between the parties requiring to be gone into and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Alhaji Hassan Khalid V. Al-Nasim Travels & Tours Limited & Anor (2014) NGCA 12; Osifo V. Okogbo Community Bank Ltd (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 260; Ataguba & Co V. Gura (Nig) Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429; Kenfrank (Nig) Ltd V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 789) 46; SPDC V. Arho-Joe (Nig) Ltd (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 966) 173; GMO Nworah & Sons Co Ltd V. Afam Akputa Esq (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 443; Babington-Ashaye V. EMA General Enterprises Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1256) 479.

It was also submitted that the contention by the Appellants that sum awarded by the Court below as per Exhibit MA1 contradicts the claim of the sum of N100,000,000.00 by the Respondents was misconceived in that by placing Exhibit MA1 before the Court below amounted to an admission by the Appellants of what sums they were owing to the Respondents and contended that the Court below was right to rely and act on the evidence put forward by the Appellants themselves and urged the Court to hold that in law a Court can give judgment based on admission of a party, which is the best evidence in proof of any fact, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties when no triable issue or any defense on the merit had been disclosed by the Appellants and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below. Counsel referred to Sections 20 and 21 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and relied on Pan African International Supply Co. Ltd. and Ors V. Jkpeez Impex Co. Ltd. and Anor (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182)1; Salawu V. Yusuf (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 384) 230 at p. 252; Okpokpo V Uko (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 94.

APPELLANT’S REPLY SUBMISSIONS
In his reply, learned counsel for the Appellant merely reiterated his earlier submissions but the reply brief is not an avenue for an Appellant to re-argue his appeal or merely to have a second bite at the cherry. The Reply Brief is for the serious business of answering new points or fresh issues raised in the Respondent’s brief, which were not covered by the submissions in the Appellant’s brief. It need not and ought not to be filed just as a matter of course even where there is nothing new or fresh in the Respondent’s brief to respond to by the Appellant. In the circumstances, the Appellant’s Reply brief having brought nothing new to the discussion table is hereby discountenanced. See Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016. See also Olafisoye V. FRN 2004 1SC Pt. 11 27; Ikine V. Edjerode (2001) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 94; Longe V. FBN (2010) 2-3 SC 61; Registered Trustees, Ikoyi Club 1938 V. Mr. Timothy Ikujuni (2019) LPELR-47373 (CA).

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES ONE AND TWO
My lords, the proceedings of the Court below leading to the ruling/judgment being appealed against in this appeal was one strictly conducted under the Undefended List procedure. Thus, it was simply a battle fought purely on affidavits and documentary evidence of the parties as placed before the Court below. Going by the grounds of appeal and the issues distilled therefrom by the parties in their respective briefs, it seems clear to me that the fulcrum of this appeal is the vexed issue of when proceedings under the Undefended Cause List procedure can properly be invoked by a party and when should a judgment be entered and/or when should such a claim be transferred to the General Cause List.
In law, the Undefended List procedure is usually aimed at dispensing with dispatch cases which are virtually uncontested and/or cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that a Claimant is entitled to judgment and it is inexpedient to allow a Defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay. It is designed to secure quick justice and avoid the injustice likely to occur when there is no genuine defense on the merits to the Claimant’s case. It is to shorten the hearing of a suit where the claim is for liquidated sum. Thus, it is for the plain and straight forward cases to the joys and the interest of justice and not for the devious and crafty Defendant whose joy to unnecessarily delay the payment of his just debt is timely cut short by due process of law. See Uba & Anor V. Jargaba (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247 per Tobi JSC. See also Dio – Global Concepts Nig. Ltd. V. Access Bank Nig. Plc. (2016) LPELR-40789 (CA) per Georgewill JCA; Dala Air Services Ltd V. Sudan Airways Ltd (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 238) 697; Agro Millers Limited V. Confidential Merchant Bank (Nig) Plc (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 525) 469.

My Lords, I had earlier reproduced in great details the facts relied upon by the Respondents in proceeding against the Appellants under the Undefended List procedure of the Court below. I have similarly reproduced in great details the facts relied upon by the Appellants in urging the Court below to transfer the claim of the Respondents from the Undefended Cause List to the General Cause List for hearing and determination at plenary trial.

Now, because of the crucial role played by the contents of Exhibit MA1, in both the decision of the Court below and submissions of counsel for the parties, I shall take the liberty to reproduce hereunder in extenso the contents of Exhibit MA1, as follows:
“This Settlement Agreement is made this…day of…2011 Between Muhammad Jibrin of No. 6 Dar-es-Salaam Street off Aminu Kano Crescent Wuse II, Abuja who is hereafter referred to as the creditor and Alhaji Mohammed Asibelua of Plot 6 Usuma Close Maitama Abuja who is hereafter referred to as the debtor.
Whereas:
1. Sometime in 2008 and in a financial transaction between the parties, the creditor paid to the debtor the sum of $1,365,000 being value of transfers/payments made to and on behalf of the debtor which the debtor fully acknowledged.
2. That in return for the above transactions, the debtor through his companies (Arcadia Petroleum Nigeria Ltd and Glenview Oil and Gas) issued to the creditor through his companies Northside Apartment Ltd and Korum Ltd two Standard Chartered Bank cheques amounting to N200,000,000.00 being value and equivalent of the transfers made on behalf of the debtor as stated in clause 1 above. It is hereby agreed as follws:

1. Having the debtor pay the sum of $140,000.00 to the creditor out of the original sum of $1,365,000.00, the outstanding balance now is $1,225,000.00.

2. That the debtor hereby undertakes and agrees to settle this outstanding due to the creditor in four equal installments of $306,250 beginning from the 30th of January 2011.
i. That January to March is the 1st Quarter and payment is to be made on the 30th of January, 2011;
ii. April to June is the 2nd Quarter, and Payment is to be made on the 30th of March 2011;
iii. July to September is the 3rd Quarter and payment is to be made by the 30th of September, 2011;
iv. October to December is the 4th Quarter and Payment is to be made by the 30th of September, 2011.
3. That Pursuant to the above agreement reached, the creditor shall, with immediate effect, withdraw the petitions at the EFCC and discontinue the Civil Suit against the debtor on the ground that the above terms and agreement shall be complied with by the debtor. That the parties have agreed not to renege on this agreement.” See pages 17-18 of the Record of Appeal.

It was on the strength of the above affidavit and documentary Exhibits of the parties that the Court below had in a terse Bench Ruling delivered on 21/5/2013 granted the claims of the Respondents as Claimants against the Appellants as Defendants, stating and holding as follows:
“Court Ruling: I have considered the Notice of Intention to Defend the suit as filed by the Defendant though it obviously appears to be Notice of Admission to the Plaintiffs claim taking into account Exhibit MA1 referred to under paragraph 4 of the affidavit evidence of the Defendant in support of the said Notice. By that it is clear to me that there is no Defence on the merit connecting the said Notice of Intention to Defend the suit and since the Defendant has made 1st installment payment of the sum being claimed, the term of the agreement in MA1 are heavily quoted as judgment of the Court as against the Defendant.” See page 25 of the Record of Appeal.

Now, on the one hand the Appellant had contended vehemently that the facts as deposed in their affidavit in support of their Notice of Intention to Defend when taken together raised triable and/or substantial issues and/or disputes for which the Respondents’ suit ought to have been transferred to the General Cause List of the Court below for hearing, and not to have proceeded to enter judgment against the Appellants in terms of the settlement which had been breached by the Respondents. On the other hand, the Respondents had contended vehemently too, but to the contrary, that the totality of the facts relied upon by the Appellants in their affidavit in support of the Notice of Intention to Defend raised no triable and/or substantial issues and/or dispute but consisted mainly of their admission of their indebtedness to the Respondents and thereby disclosed neither a defense on the merit nor triable issue to warrant the transfer of the suit from the Undefended Cause List to the General Cause List, and therefore, the Court below was right to have proceeded to enter judgment against the Appellants under the Undefended List.

I have taken a calm look at and dispassionately considered the affidavit and documentary evidence of the parties as in the Record of Appeal. I have also considered the very terse ruling of the Court below entering judgment against the Appellants on the claims of the Respondents. I have further considered the submissions of counsel to the parties in the light of the decision of the Court below to enter judgment against the Appellants and the reasons for doing so and I have asked myself was the Court below right or wrong when it proceeded to enter judgment against the Appellants going by the depositions in their affidavit in support of their Notice of Intention to Defend?

Under the Undefended List procedure, going by the several judicial authorities on the essence of this procedure, it is geared towards the attainment of speedy but substantial justice in cases in which a Defendant really has no defense to the claim of the Claimant against him and for judgment to be entered if there be nothing worth being further investigated by the Court on the affidavit evidence of the parties.

It is to be noted here, and very pertinently too, that once the Claimant’s suit is filed and/or placed under the Undefended Cause List, the very straight forward, and if I dare say very simple uncomplicated procedure on the date fixed for hearing of the suit filed or placed under the Undefended List, is that the Court would after hearing the parties or their counsel ascertain if on the facts as placed before it the Defendant had made out any triable issue or defense on the merit. In arriving at such a finding, the Court would critically scrutinize and examine the affidavits and documentary Exhibits, if any, of the parties to determine at that stage if the Defendant has disclosed any defense on the merit or raised at least triable issue that would need to be further enquired into by the Court by way of a full hearing.
However, where the Court finds that the Defendant has not disclosed any defense on the merit or raised any triable issue, it is under a duty to proceed to enter judgment in favor of the Claimant against the Defendant, no more no less. But, where the affidavit of the Defendant in support of the Notice of Intention to Defend discloses either a defense on the merit or triable issues or if there are substantial conflicts as to the facts of the case on the affidavits of the parties, it would be sufficient for the Court to hold that the Defendant has raised a triable issue as would require further enquiry and thus a transfer of the matter to the General Cause List should be the appropriate order to make. The Claimant’s claim would then be heard at plenary trial in which the contending rights of the parties would be enquired into and decided by the Court on the merit of the evidence as would be put forward by them at the trial.

Now, by the affidavit evidence together with the documentary Exhibits of the parties as placed before the Court below at the hearing under the Undefended List, was the Court below right when it held that the Appellants did not disclose any defense on the merit and proceeding to entering judgment in favor of the Respondents against the Appellants?

The duty to show defense on the merit or triable issue under the Undefended List procedure was squarely on the Appellants, who were the Defendants at the Court below and which they must disclose by the depositions in their affidavit in support of their Notice of Intention to Defend together with relevant documentary Exhibits, if any showing that they were either not indebted to the Respondents or that there are substantial and/or triable issue or creating some doubts on the Respondents’ claim. However, on the affidavit and the sole documentary Exhibit of the Appellants, Exhibit MA1, and having taken time to calmly review them alongside the affidavit and documentary Exhibits of the Respondents, particularly Exhibit A, it is very clear to me and I so hold that the Court below was right when it held that on the face of Exhibit MA1, not only did the Appellants have no defense on the merit to the claim of the Respondents against them but also, and very pertinently too, that what the Appellants filed as their ‘Notice of Intention to Defend” was actually a ‘Notice of Admission” of the claim of the Respondents against the Appellants.

My lords, I see nothing wrong in the above finding. It is the truth of the matter that not only did the Appellants had no defense on the merit having not disclosed any iota of any defense in their depositions in the affidavit in support of their Notice of Intention to Defend, but they rather virtually admitted their indebtedness to the Respondents for which they had already not only issued Exhibit A which was returned unpaid by the Bank on presentation but they had even gone ahead to make some payments on their indebtedness to the Respondents.

Honestly, the complaint or worry of the Appellants that they stopped paying the balance in Exhibit MA1 because the Respondents were in breach of the term which stipulated; “That Pursuant to the above agreement reached, the Creditor shall, with immediate effect, withdraw the Petitions at the EFCC and discontinue the Civil Suit against the Debtor”. But it seems they conveniently forgot or simply decided to close their eyes to the concluding part of this stipulation; “On the ground that the above terms and agreement shall be complied with by the debtor.”

Thus, even on their own showing, the forbearance imposed on the Respondents was contingent upon the Appellants having complied with their obligation to pay off the outstanding balance of the debt to the Respondents, which obligation the Appellants had flunked and failed and/or neglected to comply with despite the demand by the Respondents vide their Solicitor’s letter of demand vide Exhibit B. The Appellants truly and as found as fact by the Court below, and quite rightly too in view, had no defence at all to the claims of the Respondents against them and the only option that was open under the Undefended List procedure to the Court below, and which it correctly used, was simply to proceed, as it did, to enter judgment against the Appellants in favour of the Respondent. There can be no issue of breach of fair hearing here and there was none made out by the Appellants. In Mat Holdings Ltd V. U.B.A Plc. (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 803) 71 at p. 90, the relationship between the Undefended List procedure and the right to fair hearing was explained inter alia thus:
‘The rules of Court providing for cases to be placed under the undefended list are deliberately designed to allow for quick dispensation of justice to avoid unnecessarily clogging our legal system with proceedings which could otherwise have been easily and quickly disposed of. Although the need for fair hearing should not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, the procedure should not be frustrated or thwarted by fanciful or general defenses directed at frustrating the Plaintiff out of judgment he well deserves. A case should not be transferred from undefended list to the general cause list merely on the whims and caprices of a Defendant who merely finds the words fair hearing a convenient as well as handy slogan.’
See also Aso Motel Kaduna Ltd V. Deyemo (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 978)80 at pp. 121-122; Dio-Global Concepts Nig. Ltd. V. Access Bank Nig. Plc. (2016) LPELR-40789 (CA) per Georgewill, JCA.

It is true in law, and as was aptly submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants that a claim for recovery of debts involving an account is tricky and where there are discrepancies between the amount claimed and the figure which can be ascertained only from the supporting evidence such would be said to raise a contentious issue, and which can only be resolved by trial on the merit such as where the actual indebtedness of the Defendant cannot be ascertained from the evidence available without a resort to other extrinsic accounting source. See Intercontinental Bank Ltd. V. Brifina Ltd. (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 1. However, this commendable principle of law does not in the least avail the Appellants, who by their own Exhibit MA1 had not only admitted their indebtedness to the Respondents but did not raise any dispute or issue having even commenced payment of their debts to the Appellants.
It is also true in law, and as was aptly submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants, that where the opportunity of the Court to scrutinize the claim of the Claimant to place it under the Undefended List is hampered by the automatic placing of the claim under the Undefended List by operation of the Rules of the Court, it does not relieve the Court of its primary duty to vet the claims of the Claimant first before considering the Notice of Intention to Defend. Indeed, it would amount to a charade to skip this duty and commence the consideration of the case with the Notice of Intention to Defend since the primary onus was on the Claimant to show at least a prima facie case of his claim before the need for the Defendant to defend himself would arise. See Intercontinental Bank Ltd V. Brifina Limited (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316)1. See also Okeke V. NICON Hotels Ltd. (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 216 at p. 222. See also Pwol V. Union Bank Plc (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 631 at p. 635.
In Jolayemi V. Alaoye (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 322, where, Uwaifo JSC, had so succinctly put this position of law in its proper perspective thus:
“I realise that a Defendant need not prove anything if the Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case at least prima facie, in order that the necessity of the Defendant to confront the case so made out may arise”
However, the above finer principle of law does not in the least avail the Appellants, who by their own Exhibit MA1 had unequivocally admitted their indebtedness to the Respondent in Exhibit MAI and by Exhibit A.

My lords, the law is and has always been that once the conclusion reached by a trial Court, or any Court for that matter, is correct then even a wrong reason for the correct conclusion and/or finding, which is the pathway to the conclusion, will not by itself alone vitiate the correct finding and/or conclusion of the Court below. Therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusion reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. It follows that it is only and only if the conclusion reached and/or the finding made itself turns out to be wrong that an appellate Court would be under a duty to intervene to make proper findings and reach correct conclusions. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 at p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46; Agbon-Ojeme .V. Selo-Ojeme & Ors (2020) LPELR-49688 (CA) per Georgewill JCA.

In the light of all I have stated and found above, issues one and two for determination are hereby resolved against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.

On the whole therefore, having resolved issues one and two for determination against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents, I hold that the appeal lacks merit and is thus, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

In the result, the ruling/judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Coram: I. U. Bello J., in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/346/2010: Northside Apartment Ltd. & Anor V. Arcadia Petroleum Nig. Ltd. & Anor delivered on 21/5/2013, in which judgment was entered under the undefended list on the claims of the Respondents as Claimants against the Appellants as Defendants, is hereby affirmed.
There shall be cost of N300,000,00 against the Appellants in favour of the Respondents.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree with the leading judgment of my Learned Brother GEORGEWILL, JCA and the orders therein contained.

BATURE ISAH GAFAI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now, the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Sir B.A. GEORGEWILL, JCA.

I am in full agreement with the reasonings therein expressed by my lord and the conclusion reached thereby. I adopt those reasonings as mine by which I too find this appeal frivolous, unmeritorious and aimed at no other purpose than employing the Judicial Process mala fide to evade and truncate the Respondents’ success in the judgment of the lower Court which was delivered way back in May, 2013.

In consequence, I too dismiss this appeal and affirm the ruling of the lower Court. I abide by the order on cost.