ANTHONY IDEHEN OGIDA VS JACKSON OSAZE OLIHA
July 22, 2025MILITARY GOVERNOR, LAGOS STATE AND ORS VS CHIEF EMEKA ODUMEGWU OJUKWU
July 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1986-02) Legalpedia 33208 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Mon Feb 17, 1986
Suit Number: LER[1986] SC 149/ 1983
CORAM
ESO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF HAROLD SHODIPO
APPELLANTS
LEMMINKAINEN & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
RECOVERY OF DEBT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs/respondents in the High Court of Justice, filed a writ of summons. The claim as disclosed by the Statement of Claim, endorsed on the writ, is for recovery of money which the Plaintiffs allegedly lent, in foreign currency, that is, U.S. dollars and U.K. sterling, to the defendant, or, in the alternative, the same amount in the same currency, had and received by the defendant for the use of the Plaintiffs. Judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was dismissed. He further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal was set aside.
ISSUES
Whether or not the endorsement to the writ filed by the Plaintiffs did amount to a Statement of Claim, as required by the Rules, in other words whether or not there is a defect, in law, in the writ.
Whether or not the Judge could raise such issues as have not been raised by the Parties.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AN ACTION IN THE UNDEFENDED LIST IS NOT A REAL SUBSTITUTE TO TRIAL OF ACTIONS
“An action in the undefended list, following these Rules, is not a real substitute to trial of actions, but it serves the purpose of reducing congestion in the courts, by way of creating an avenue for the speedy determination of actions.” Per KAYODE ESO, J.S.C.
AUTHORITY TO SWEAR AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
“What the Rule requires where the Plaintiff himself has not sworn to the affidavit accompanying the endorsed writ is that the person who swears to the affidavit must be in position to swear positively to the facts verifying the cause of action and must be able to state, in his belief, that the defendant has no defense to the action.” Per KAYODE ESO, J.S.C.
ENDORSEMENT OF WRIT
“It is already trite that no court will be friendly with or countenance illegality. Indeed the law needs no restatement. What is important therefore is whether on the Statement of Claim endorsed to the writ in this case, there is prima facie illegality.” Per KAYODE ESO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Chirgwin v. Russell (1910) 27 T.L.R. (C.A.) 21
Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority (1976) Q.B. 629 at p.649
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
