SERGIUS ONYEKWELU VS ELF PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

SERGIUS ONYEKWELU VS ELF PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED

HON. JESSIE BALONWU V. SENATOR JOY EMORDI & ORS
May 28, 2025
J. A. ADEKOYE V. NIGERIAN SECURITY PRINITING MINTING COMPANY LIMITED
May 28, 2025
HON. JESSIE BALONWU V. SENATOR JOY EMORDI & ORS
May 28, 2025
J. A. ADEKOYE V. NIGERIAN SECURITY PRINITING MINTING COMPANY LIMITED
May 28, 2025
Show all

SERGIUS ONYEKWELU VS ELF PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED

Legalpedia Citation: (2009-02) Legalpedia 91359 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Feb 6, 2009

Suit Number: SC 134/2003

CORAM


N TOBI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

W S N ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

F F TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

C M CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


SERGIUS ONYEKWELU

(Trading under the name and style of Compet Nig. Enterprises)

APPELLANTS 


ELF PETROLEUM NIGERIA LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CONTRACT – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant as plaintiff sued the respondent for breach of contract when the latter rejected goods supplied to it by the appellant on the grounds that the goods were not new and refused to pay the agreed sum. The trial court found for the appellant but the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the appellant has now appealed

 

 


HELD


Appeal dismissed

 

 


ISSUES


1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it set aside the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to challenge or contradict the evidence of DW2 to the effect that he (DW2) and the Plaintiff/Appellant had once discussed the fact that the Defendant had rejected the goods when such evidence or facts on such evidence were not pleaded by the Defendant?

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that it was not the duty of the Defendant/Respondent to call an expert witness to compare the signatures on EXHIBITS ‘L,’ ‘M’ and ‘H’

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


WHERE THERE IS A CONTRACT BY WHICH ONE PARTY UNDERTAKES TO SUPPLY THE OTHER WITH GOODS AT A STIPULATED PRICE


The law is well settled that where there is a contract by which one party undertakes to supply the other with goods at a stipulated price, the seller is bound to deliver the goods, and the buyer, upon accepting the delivery of the goods, is bound to pay the purchase price of the goods. Per Mohammed, JSC

 

 


PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THEIR CONTRACT


Parties are bound by the terms of their contract. This means that if any dispute should arise with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the contract, are invariably the guide to its interpretation. Per Mohammed, JSC

 

 


FAILURE OF COURT TO PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS POWER TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE


If a trial Court fails to exercise properly its powers as a trial Court to consider and evaluate the evidence adduced by both parties on certain relevant issues, as happened in the instant case on the issue of the rejection of the goods by the Respondent, it is the duty of the appellate Court, if it does not involve credibility of witnesses to consider and evaluate such evidence and to make proper findings. Per Mohammed, JSC

 

 


CASES CITED


1. Clement Horst Co. v. Biddel Bros. (1912) A. C. 18.

2. Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 135) 745

3. Imah v. Okogbe (1993) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 316) 159

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Sale of Goods Law of Rivers State of Nigeria in Edict No. 5 of 1988.

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.