OSOM v. CITY SECURITIES LTD & ORS (2020)

OSOM v. CITY SECURITIES LTD & ORS

(2020)LCN/15371(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, September 18, 2020

CA/E/462A/2013

RATIO

COURT PROCEEDING: WHETHER A PARTY CAN INTRODUCE NEW ISSUES DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE AT TRIAL

A party cannot deviate from the case presented at trial. If at all new issues different from the case at trial must be introduced, leave of Court must be first sought and obtained. See AJIDE VS. KELANI (1985) LPELR-302(SC) and AKUNEZIRI VS. OKENWA & ORS (2000) LPELR-393 (SC). PER JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

DAMAGES: WHETHER CLAIMS FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED AND STRICTLY PROVED

The position of the law is trite that claims of special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The need to establish special damages by credible evidence is further enhanced by the fact that special damages are not inferred as flowing naturally from the alleged wrong. They are injuries specifically suffered by the claimant in respect of which proof is required. See SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED VS. CHIEF G.B.A. TIEBO & ORS (2005) 9 NWLR (PT.931) 439 at 461.
The case provided by the Cross-Appellant at trial consisted of suppositions and assumptions which no Court would accept in the place of credible evidence. See OMOZEGHIAN VS. ADJARHO & ANOR (2005) LPELR-7489 (CA).
The arguments of the Cross-Appellant before this Court were bolstered by counsel with the premises upon which the trial Tribunal founded the award of general damages. This does not help his case. The evidential basis for the award of general damages differs substantially from that of special damages. Unlike special damages which must be specifically proved, general damages are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of. See AKINTERINWA VS. OLADUNJOYE (2000) 1 NWLR (PT 659) 93 AT 115, UBN PLC VS. IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR (PT. 646) 223 at 237 and ELF PETROLEUM VS. UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR-43600 (SC). PER JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT IS AT VARIANCE WITH PLEADINGS

Pleadings constitute the foundational basis for evidence in any civil proceedings. Evidence at variance with pleadings goes to no issue. See AKPAPUNA & ORS. VS. NZEKA & ORS. (1983) LPELR-384(SC), ACHONU VS. OKUWOBI (2017) LPELR-42102(SC) and SOGUNRO & ORS VS. YEKU & ORS (2017) LPELR-41905(SC). PER JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

HON. (PRINCE) SONNY EDET OSOM APPELANT(S)

And

1. CITY SECURITIES LIMITED 2. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 3. MRS OIL NIGERIA PLC RESPONDENT(S)

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is a cross-appeal against the decision of the Investment and Securities Tribunal delivered on the 4th June, 2013 by W.D. IKATARI, Presiding Chairman, T.C. OSAMMOR, Hon. Member, U.S. BABURA, Hon. Member and S.A. Yelwa, Hon. Member.

The Cross-Appellant, who had invested in the shares of the 3rd Cross-Respondent, lost his original share certificate in a fire incident upon which he contacted the 1st Cross-Respondent as the Registrars of the 3rd Cross-Respondent for replacement. Despite fulfilling all necessary formalities, the Cross-Appellant was not issued the requested replacement certificate for several years upon which he notified the 3rd Cross-Respondent and when he failed to get any respite, he eventually escalated the issue to the attention of the 2nd Cross-Respondent at whose instance the said replacement certificate was eventually issued.

At this stage, the Cross-Appellant decided to abandon the replaced certificate and opted to initiate an action at the trial Tribunal wherein he sought the following reliefs:
GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(A) Payment of N51,471,963.20 being value of Applicant’s 3333 shares in MRS OIL NIGERIA PLC (3rd Respondent) including unearned income on non-investment in business of the 3333 shares for over a period of 13 years Nine Months (June 1998 – March, 2012) including Bank charges and Legal Fees computed/obtained as follows:
(i) 3333 X N435.00 – being each share price as per attached 2008 stock market price summary – N1, 451,854.80 (Exhibit Z).
(Being value of 3333 shares when Applicant needed the shares Certificates to sell, raise or obtain Bank loan for various Investments/Execution of Contracts)
(ii) Add 20% of N1,451,854.80 per month for 13 years 9 months (165 Months) as income Profit Accruable (N1,451,854. 80 x 165 x 20%) – N47,911,208.40.
Being payment for losses/unearned income arising from non-investment of 3333 shares during the period of 13 years 9 months (165 Months) June 1998 to March, 2012.
(iii) Add 10% of N1,089,000.00 (i.e. 10% of 2500 x 435.60 each share price) N108,900.00.
Being payment of a refund of Union Bank charges on the indemnity given to City Securities Limited and MRS Oil Nigeria Plc.
On 26/6/1998 against all claims, Demands, loses, moneys, damages, Costs and expenses that could arise After City Securities Limited and MRS Oil Nigeria Plc, had issued me a Replacement Certificate for the 2500 Shares) the amount is the equivalent In the year 2008 when in 1998, I paid Union Bank their charges/commission for the indemnity.
(iv) Sub Total N49,471,963.20
(v) Add Legal Fees N2,000,000.00
(vi) TOTAL N51,471,963.20
B) Payment of 20% of N1,451,854.80 monthly from April 2012 to the day judgment is given at the Tribunal or Appeal Court.
(C) And other orders the Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

Each of the Cross-Respondents contested the action on various grounds and after taking evidence and final addresses from the respective counsel, the trial Tribunal found in favour of the Cross-Appellant. In doing so however, the trial Tribunal dismissed the action against the 2nd Cross-Respondent (1st Respondent at trial), dismissed the claims for special damages except that of legal fees, found the 1st Cross-Respondent (2nd Respondent at trial) liable for negligence and ordered it to pay various sums of money as damages and also found the 3rd Cross-Respondent (3rd Respondent at trial) liable for dereliction of duty and ordered it to pay cost to the Cross-Appellant.

Dissatisfied, the 1st Cross-Respondent invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 12th August, 2013. Equally dissatisfied, the Cross-Appellant filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on the 28th February, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on the 29th January, 2018.

Learned counsel for the Cross-Appellant, Mr. Adawo adopted the Cross-Appellant’s brief filed on the 20th February, 2017 but deemed properly filed and served on the 29th January, 2018, as well as the three Reply briefs filed in response to the briefs of each of the Cross-Respondents on the 30th April, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 9th May, 2019 as the arguments of the Cross-Appellant in furtherance of his Cross-Appeal.

Mr. Onovo adopted his 1st Cross-Respondent’s brief filed on the 26th February, 2018, Mrs. Uko adopted the 2nd Cross-Respondent’s brief of 14th January, 2019 while the 3rd Cross-Respondent’s brief filed on the 13th November, 2017 was deemed adopted as the respective arguments of the Cross-Respondents in contesting the Cross-Appeal.

The 1st Cross-Respondent objected to grounds 2 and 3 of the Notice of Cross-Appeal and issues 2 and 3 distilled therefrom. The objection shall be attended to forthwith.

The objection is to the effect that the two grounds represent a departure from the case presented by the Cross-Appellant at trial and being unrelated to the case contested at trial, ought only to have been introduced on appeal with leave of Court. The learned counsel referred to INTERNATIONAL MESSENGERS (NIGERIA) LTD VS PEGOFOR INDUSTRIES LTD (2005) LPELR-1525(SC), EDEBIRI VS EDEBIRI (1997) 4 NWLR (PT 498) 165 at 174 and KALU VS FRN & ORS (2012) LPELR-9287(CA).

The response for the Cross-Appellant was that the evidence he gave at trial was that his claims were jointly and severally against the Cross-Respondents and that grounds 2 and 3 and issues distilled therefrom were in line therewith and accordingly in line with the case made out at trial.

A perusal of the pleadings of the Cross-Appellant indicates sufficient basis for clear apportionment of liabilities thereby creating a basis for the grounds of appeal objected to.

To that extent, I agree with the Cross-Appellant that the objection lacks merit and I accordingly dismiss it. I shall now proceed to the substance of the Cross-Appeal.

The Cross-Appellant distilled four issues for determination from each of the grounds of Notice of Cross-Appeal, thus:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing claims No. 19A(i), 19A(ii), 19A(iii) and 19(B) in the Cross Appellant’s case before the Tribunal. (Ground 1).
2. Whether the Tribunal was right to have exonerated SEC of all liabilities in Cross Appellant’s case before the Tribunal. (Ground 2).
3. Whether the Tribunal did not err in law when she awarded very minimal damages against MRS OIL NIG PLC not minding her deep involvement in failing, refusing, neglecting to issue and remit the 2,500 shares duplicate Certificate No. 14171 and also ignoring to issue and dispatch to Cross Appellant his 1997 Bonus 833 shares Certificate. (Ground 3).
4. Whether it was right for the Tribunal to alter in camera, that part of its judgment on payment of interest to the Cross Appellant after the judgment had already been read or pronounced in open Court. (Ground 4).

The 1st Cross-Respondent on its part formulated two issues covering only ground 1 and 4 of the Notice of Cross-Appeal thus:
(1) Whether the Tribunal was right when it refused the Cross Appellant’s claims for special damages as contained in paragraphs 19 A(i), A(ii), A(iii) and B of the Claim (Ground 1 of the notice of cross-appeal).
(2) Whether the text of the judgment contained at pp. 622-640 of the Record is wrong as it relates to the period over which interest payment is applicable in favour of the Cross Appellant. (Ground 4 of the notice of cross-appeal).
The 2nd Cross-Respondent on its part formulated a lone issue thus:

Whether SEC adequately disposed of its statutory duties and in the public interest in dealing with the 1st respondent/cross appellant’s petition as was held and affirmed by the Investments and Securities Tribunal?
Finally on this, the 3rd Cross-Respondent formulated three issues thus:
(a) Whether the lower Court erred in law by dismissing the claims contained in paragraph 19 A(i), (ii), (iii) and 19 (B) in the Cross Appellant’s Claim at the lower Court. (Ground 1 of the Notice of Cross Appeal).
(b) Whether the lower Court erred in law by absolving the 2nd Cross Respondent of all liabilities (Ground 2 of the Notice of Cross Appeal).
(c) Whether the award of the sum of N100,000.00 against the 3rd Cross Respondent by the lower Court was right (Ground 3 of the Notice of Cross Appeal).

A perusal of the different sets of distilled issues shows that only the issues formulated by the Cross-Appellant touches all the grounds contained in the Notice of Cross-Appeal. I shall therefore adopt the issues formulated by the Cross-Appellant and juxtapose the arguments of the parties appropriately.
The first issue therefore is:
Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing claims No. 19A(i), 19A(ii), 19A(iii) and 19(B) in the Cross Appellant’s case before the Tribunal.

Arguing this issue, Mr. Adawo stated that it was not disputed at trial that the Cross-Appellant was the owner of the 3333 shares of the 3rd Cross-Respondent in issue and that his evidence as to the value he could have sold the shares were equally not disputed. He further outlined the case made by the Cross-Appellant in respect of his other heads of claim for special damage which were not contested and submitted that it was erroneous of the trial Tribunal to have rejected these heads of the Cross-Appellant’s claim based on the available evidence. He referred to ASESA VS EKWENEM (2001) 10 NWLR (PT 270) 97, JULIUS BERGER VS OGUNDEHIN (2014) 2 NWLR (PT 1391) 388 at 429 and BLUE-CHIP ACQUISITION & INVESTMENT CO. LTD VS ZENITH BANK PLC & ORS (2007) 2 NISLR-61.

Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Tribunal ought to have considered the surrounding circumstances including the failure to challenge adduced evidence and the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium to award special and general damages in favour of the Cross-Appellant. He referred to NACENN VS BEWAC 46 NSCWR (PT 1) 230 at 247, CBN VS OKOJIE (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC) at 35, ARISONS LTD VS MILITARY GOVERNOR, OGUN STATE (2009) 6 KLR (PT 268) 1483 at 1501, AMAECHI VS INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (PT 1065) 98 and OYEKANMI VS NEPA (2000) 15 NWLR (PT 690) 414.

For the 1st Cross-Respondent, Mr. Onovo submitted that relief 19 A(i) of the Cross-Respondent was not grantable and was rightly rejected by the trial Tribunal. He referred to Section 106 (1) and (3) of the Companies And Allied Matters Act, Cap C20, Laws of the Federation, 2004 and CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES LTD VS ACCESS BANK PLC (2012) LPELR-8396(CA) and EKPE VS MORAH (1999) LPELR-6631(CA). The learned counsel distinguished the decision in BLUE-CHIP ACQUISITION & INVESTMENT CO. LTD VS ZENITH BANK PLC & ORS (supra) relied upon by the Cross-Appellant pointing out that the facts were totally different.

It was further submitted for the 1st Cross-Respondent that the Cross-Appellant failed to lead evidence sufficient to justify his entitlement to his claims for special damages thereby justifying the refusal thereof by the trial Tribunal. Learned counsel referred to AHMED & ORS VS CBN (2012) LPELR 9341 (SC), NEKA B.B.B. MANUFACTURING CO LTD VS ACB LTD (2004) 1 KLR (PT 170) 37, G.F.K. INV. LTD VS NITEL PLC (2009) 7 KLR (PT 270) 1899 and NNPC VS CLIFCO NIG. LTD (2011) 4 KLR (PT 295) 1039 at 1061.

It was argued further for the 1st Cross-Respondent that the claim of the Cross-Appellant was founded on breach of statutory duties which did not entitle him to damages especially as no express time-frame was stipulated for issuance of replacement share certificates. Learned counsel referred to BEECHAM GROUP LTD VS ESSDEE FOOD PRODUCTS NIG. LTD (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 11) 112, GOVERNOR ZAMFARA STATE V GYALANGE (supra) and NDOMA-EGBA VS CHUKWUOGOR (2004) 2 KLR (PT 173) 671 at 691.

While the 2nd Cross-Respondent failed to proffer any arguments on this issue, the learned counsel for the 3rd Cross-Respondent submitted that the heads of claim for special damages were rightfully rejected by the trial Tribunal as the adduced evidence failed to justify the respective claims. He submitted that challenged or not, special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved and distinguished the various cases referred to by the Cross-Appellant. He then referred to ENEH VS OZOR (2016) 16 NWLR (PT 1538) 219.

In his reply arguments Mr. Adawo rejected the contention that the relief sought by the Cross-Appellant relinquishing the 3333 shares amounted to the 3rd Cross-Respondent reducing its share capital or buying back its own shares. He reiterated his earlier arguments that the rejected reliefs for special damages were well established at trial.

The various heads of claim outlined in 19A(i), 19A(ii), 19A(iii) and 19(B) are for special damages. The position of the law is trite that claims of special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The need to establish special damages by credible evidence is further enhanced by the fact that special damages are not inferred as flowing naturally from the alleged wrong. They are injuries specifically suffered by the claimant in respect of which proof is required. See SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED VS. CHIEF G.B.A. TIEBO & ORS (2005) 9 NWLR (PT.931) 439 at 461.
The case provided by the Cross-Appellant at trial consisted of suppositions and assumptions which no Court would accept in the place of credible evidence. See OMOZEGHIAN VS. ADJARHO & ANOR (2005) LPELR-7489 (CA).
The arguments of the Cross-Appellant before this Court were bolstered by counsel with the premises upon which the trial Tribunal founded the award of general damages. This does not help his case. The evidential basis for the award of general damages differs substantially from that of special damages. Unlike special damages which must be specifically proved, general damages are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of. See AKINTERINWA VS. OLADUNJOYE (2000) 1 NWLR (PT 659) 93 AT 115, UBN PLC VS. IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR (PT. 646) 223 at 237 and ELF PETROLEUM VS. UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR-43600 (SC).

In the circumstances therefore, I resolve this issue against the Cross-Appellant and in favour of the Cross-Respondents.
The next issue is:
Whether the Tribunal was right to have exonerated SEC of all liabilities in Cross Appellant’s case before the Tribunal.

The contention of the Cross-Appellant in this regard was that the 2nd Cross-Respondent was wrongfully absolved of liability by the trial Tribunal. Learned counsel proceeded to highlight steps which the said 2nd Cross-Respondent failed to take and for which it ought to have been found liable at trial.

The 1st Cross-Respondent did not join arguments on this while the 2nd and 3rd Cross-Respondents submitted that contrary to the contention of the Cross-Appellant, the 2nd Cross-Respondent took all necessary steps on its part to address the complaints of the Cross-Appellant and that this was confirmed by the trial Tribunal. They both urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of the Cross-Appellant.

The trial Tribunal after reviewing the evidence adduced at trial was of the view that the 2nd Respondent acted timeously and appropriately in addressing the complaints of the Cross-Appellant and accordingly absolved it of any liability. A perusal of the adduced evidence supports the findings in this regard. The 2nd Cross-Respondent is a statutory body with specific statutory responsibilities for regulating the stock market. A statutory body is to discharge its statutory mandate in line with the provisions of its enabling statute but not to dance to the whims of individuals no matter how aggrieved or influential. The expectations of individuals in interacting with statutory bodies must be moderated by the provisions of the enabling statute. As held by the trial Tribunal, the 2nd Cross-Respondent reacted with dispatch to the complaint of the Cross-Appellant. The various steps taken indicated that it was alive to its statutory responsibilities.

One cannot but notice that a substantial part of the arguments of the Cross-Appellant on this issue differed from the case argued at the trial Court. This is most improper. A party cannot deviate from the case presented at trial. If at all new issues different from the case at trial must be introduced, leave of Court must be first sought and obtained. See AJIDE VS. KELANI (1985) LPELR-302(SC) and AKUNEZIRI VS. OKENWA & ORS (2000) LPELR-393 (SC).

I agree with the trial Tribunal that there was no basis to hold the 2nd Cross-Respondent negligent in its handling of the complaint of the Cross-Appellant. I therefore resolve this issue as well against the Cross-Appellant and in favour of the Cross-Respondents.
The next issue is:
Whether the Tribunal did not err in law when she awarded very minimal damages against MRS OIL NIG PLC not minding her deep involvement in failing, refusing, neglecting to issue and remit the 2,500 shares duplicate Certificate No. 14171 and also ignoring to issue and dispatch to Cross Appellant his 1997 Bonus 833 shares Certificate.

Arguing this issue, Mr. Adawo enumerated the areas of negligent conduct of the 3rd Cross-Respondent and submitted that the minimal damages awarded against it be reviewed appropriately in the circumstances. He referred to STEVENSON, JORDAN AND HARRISON LTD VS MACDONALD AND EVANS LTD (1952) ITLR 101 at 111 and JOHN HOLT PLC VS ALLEN (2014) 17 NWLR (PT 1437) 443.

The response of the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent was that based on the evidence led by the Cross-Appellant, the trial Tribunal could not have made a higher award of damages against the 3rd Respondent and urged the Court to discountenance the case of STEVENSON, JORDAN AND HARRISON LTD VS MACDONALD AND EVANS LTD (supra) as inapplicable.

The reply argument of the Cross-Appellant was a reinforcement of the earlier position that the trial Tribunal was in error to have made nominal award of damages against the 3rd Cross-Respondent.

The trial Tribunal reviewed the evidence adduced at trial and awarded damages of N100,000.00 against the 3rd Cross-Respondent. In doing so, the trial Tribunal considered the degree of liability of the said 3rd Cross-Respondent and found that it was not as grievous compared to that of the 2nd Cross-Respondent. As noted earlier on in this judgment, the pleadings of the Cross-Appellant contained specific allegations of complicity against each of the Cross-Respondents.

Having found the 3rd Cross-Respondent liable, the basis for the award of damages against it could not be faulted as with regards to general damages, the trial Court has substantial discretion to examine the circumstances of the case and make appropriate award. I do not see any basis to interfere with the award made herein and I shall accordingly resolve the said issue against the Cross-Appellant and in favour of the 3rd Cross-Respondent.

The remaining issue is:
Whether it was right for the Tribunal to alter in camera, that part of its judgment on payment of interest to the Cross Appellant after the judgment had already been read or pronounced in open Court.

On this issue, the Cross-Appellant argued that it was erroneous of the trial Tribunal to alter the judgment pronounced in open Court unilaterally in the copies later released to the parties. Learned counsel argued that after delivering the said judgment, the trial Tribunal was functus officio and referred to SANUSI VS AYOOLA (1992) NWLR (PT 265) 275, FIRST BANK VS TSA INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) 15 NWLR (PT 1216) 247 and FRANCIS SHANU VS AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC (2002) 17 NWLR (PT 795) 185.

In response, Mr. Onovo contended that the Cross-Appellant could not challenge the same records it was relying on to conduct his appeal and that even if he could do so, he had to follow the extant procedure and that failure to comply denied members of the trial Tribunal the opportunity to react. He submitted that the written version of a judgment is the only authentic version. He referred to OJENGBEDE VS ESAN & ANOR (2001) LPELR-2372 (SC), OLORO & ANOR VS KAYODE OLAWOLU (2013) LPELR-21101 (CA) and MAGAJI VS NIGERIAN ARMY (2008) LPELR-1814(SC).

This position was equally towed by the learned counsel for the 2nd Cross-Respondent who argued that he was not aware of any difference in the contents of the judgment as alleged and further agreed with his colleague for the 1st Cross-Respondent that a challenge of the records must follow the extant procedure laid out in several cases otherwise the allegation would be discountenanced. He referred to MOKWE VS WILLIAMS (1997) 11 NWLR (PT 528) 309, AGBEOTU VS BRISIBE (2005) ALL FWLR (PT 257) 1454, WAZIRI VS STATE (1997) 3 NWLR (PT 496) 689 at 723 and SOMMER VS F.H.A. (1992) NWLR (PT 219) 548 at 558.

The 3rd Cross-Respondent failed to weigh in on this issue while in his reply arguments, Mr. Adawo pointed out that indeed the Cross-Appellant filed affidavit challenging the records and served same on the Registrar of the trial Court. Learned contended that the two versions of the judgment were before the Court in the record of appeal and the extant rules had been complied in line with the cases cited by the Cross-Respondents.

By its arguments on this issue, the Cross-Appellant is challenging the authenticity of the certified true copy of the judgment of the trial Tribunal which in essence is a challenge of the records of the Court. Records of the Court by their nature enjoy a presumption of regularity which is however rebuttable on due compliance with laid down procedure. See OJENGBEDE VS. ESAN & ANOR (2001) LPELR-2372(SC) at 33.
In the present case, the Cross-Appellant filed and served an affidavit stating the basis of his challenge of the record of the Court, to wit the certified copy of the judgment. The peculiarity of his challenge however is that he is not relying on anything extraneous. The transcribed version of the judgment delivered in open Court is before this Court on pages 595-620 of the record of appeal, ditto the certified true copy of the signed judgment which is on pages 622-640. The allegation of an alteration against the trial Tribunal could therefore be easily resolved by the two documents, duly certified as emanating from the trial Tribunal.
A perusal thereof discloses that while the transcribed version on page 620 of the record of appeal, item 3 sub c of the judgment contains thus:
(c) Interest on the sum of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) at the Prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 1998 to 2011, and from today until final payment.

The subsequently signed version contains as follows on page 640 item (b):
(b) Interest on the sum of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) at the Prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 27th October, 2009 to 2011, and from today until final payment.
Where a judgment contains a slip or clerical error, such could be corrected by the Court on a motion without the necessity of an appeal but the procedure is not for a unilateral amendment to be made by the Court. Where the error noted is more than a slip, it cannot be attended to by the Court which delivered it and must be left to an appellate Court. See BERLIET (NIG) LTD VS. KACHALLA (1995) LPELR-775(SC) and IBE VS. ONUORA (1996) LPELR-1385(SC).
There was no record of any motion or proceedings involving the parties before the trial Tribunal unilaterally altered the terms of a judgment already delivered in open Court. No basis was thus provided for the alteration and it must be accordingly set aside.

This Cross-Appeal therefore succeeds in part. The unilateral amendment made by the trial Tribunal altering interest on the general damages of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 1998 to 2011, and from today until final payment to read from 27th October, 2009 to 2011 is accordingly set aside. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the said interest rate shall be at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria’s Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) from 1998 to 2011, and from today until final payment.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion therein. I abide by the consequential orders including the order for costs made therein.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: My learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA has exhaustively considered and completely resolved the issues raised for determination in this cross-appeal.

I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at that the cross-appeal succeeds in part.
I also abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgment.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.

Appearances:

Mr. N. Adawo for the Cross-Appellant For Appellant(s)

Mr. G. Onovo for the 1st Cross-Respondent

Mrs. N.N. Uko for the 2nd Cross-Respondent For Respondent(s)