CORAM

---

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN

---

PARTIES

---

NIGERIAN COLLEGE OF AVIATION TECHNOLOGY

APPELLANTS 

---

LILLEKER BROTHER NIG. LTD

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was the Defendant, while the Respondent was the Plaintiff at the trial Court. At the trial court, the Plaintiff bid for and won the contract for the re-wiring of its Administrative Block from surface to conduct wiring.

The Plaintiff was given first payment based on approved quotation and went ahead to demand for the balance sum but the defendant has willfully failed, refused and or neglected to pay to the plaintiff, despite several written and oral demands.

The Trial Court in her considered judgment entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff who is now Respondent before this Court and ordered the Defendant now Appellant to pay the balance of the contract sum.

Aggrieved, the Appellant made the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed in parts

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial judge was right in relying on an extraneous matter other than the materials placed before the court and whether she would had reached the same conclusion on issue of ad idem if she had excluded such extraneous matters. Predicated on the 1st ground

Whether the learned trial judge was right to have delivered judgment on the 29th June, 2009 instead of 23rd July, 2009 as pronounced in opened court room without any notice served on the appellant and whether such change is not an infraction on the appellant’s right of fair hearing. Predicated on 2nd ground of appeal

Whether the award of 15% interest and 5% interest by the learned trial judge has any basis or justification in law. Predicated on the 3rd ground of appeal

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF COURT

---

The law is settled that the evaluation of evidence in a case is primarily the duty of the trial court who heard the evidence and watched the witnesses testify.

The Appellate court cannot interfere with the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value by the trial court which led to her decision except when it is shown on appeal that the evaluation of evidence done by the trial court was perverse and same occasioned Appellant miscarriage of justice. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

CONTRACT – CONDUCT OF COURT

---

…the courts have no power to read into the content of a written contract by adding or subtracting, but to enforce it as it is. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

NIGERIAN COLLEGE OF AVIATION TECHNOLOGY

---

Like I said, that is to my mind, an invitation by the Appellant for this court to descend to the level of evaluation of evidence adduced before the trial court which is not the duty of this court. And since the complaint of appellant is not that the judgment of the court was arrived as a result of inappropriate evaluation of the evidence adduced before the trial court which made the judgment of the trial court perverse, we shall resist the temptation of the Appellant wooing this court to re-evaluate the evidence before the trial court. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA 

 

---

JUDGMENT – FOR AN ERROR OR ACT TO NULLIFY A JUDGMENT

---

First of all, it is settled principle of law that it is not every error that nullifies a judgment. For an error or act to nullify a judgment, it must be shown by the party calling for that nullification the injustice he has suffered by the act. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

FAIR HEARING – IT BELONGS TO THE COURTS AS WELL

---

Counsel are found of taking every slide opportunity to cry denial of fair hearing as if the fair hearing belongs to only one party. It belongs to the court as well. The judgment from the record was delivered in open court, so the submission of counsel that the judgment was not delivered in open court does not hold water. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

DAMAGES – MONETARY CLAIM ARISING FROM CONTRACT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHED

---

It must be noted that this is a claim for payment of balance of a contract sum. It is settled monetary claim arising from contract must be specifically established. Even the award of general damages is given different interpretations when it comes to judgments of this court and the Apex Court. Therefore, for the Respondent to be entitled to 15% interest from 17/01/2000, this must be specifically stated in the contract between the parties. This is more so as this is a contract of work which the Respondent charged the Appellant. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Rules 2021

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT