A. U. AMADI VS THOMAS APLIN & CO. LTD

Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 10741

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

Thu Apr 27, 1972

Suit Number: FSC 268/1966

CORAM

E.O. OGWUEGBU

JUSTICE CHARLES EFANGA ARCHIBONG JUDGE.

UDOMA

PARTIES

A. U. AMADI APPELLANTS

THOMAS APLIN & CO. LTD RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant instituted a suit claiming against the defendant £700 in consideration of a contract (involving shipment of 700 bales of stockfish) which had failed. The Respondent also filed a suit claiming from the defendant “£818:12:1d as per account stated”. The Judge suo motu consolidated the two suits and adjourned for hearing. The Counsel to the plaintiff was appointed Magistrate, so a new Counsel was appointed and filed a motion to amend pleadings. On the day for hearing, plaintiffs’ motion to amend pleadings was not allowed. The suits were heard and judgement delivered on the same day. The claim of the Appellant was dismissed and Judgement was given to the Respondent in the second suit.

HELD

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the plaintiff’s claim in suit No. P/99/63 and entering judgment for the plaintiff in suit No. P/5/64 in the sum of £693. 10s. with inclusive costs of 60 guineas were set aside.

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in law to have refused to entertain the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and also at the same time to have dismissed the motion without hearing the plaintiff, and that such dismissal of the motion has occasioned a miscarriage of justice as it was prejudicial to the plaintiff’s presentation of his case. 2. Whether the learned trial Judge misconstrued the document No. PH/1806 dated 30th May,1964, Exhibit 1, the written contract between him and the defendant by interpreting shipment therein in accordance with the meaning ascribed to the word in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as meaning “place of shipment” in Europe; and that the learned trial Judge wrongly held that quite independently of the time of the arrival of the stockfish in Port Harcourt, the plaintiff was not entitled to reject the bales of stockfish even though wrong quantities were delivered to the plaintiff contrary to the contract between the parties

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MATTERS ARISING FROM A CONSTRUCTION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT

“It is settled law that in ordinary commercial contracts for the sale of goods the rule clearly is that time is prima facie of the essence with respect to delivery. (See McDougall v. Aeromarine of Emsworth Limited (1958) 1 WLR 1126)”