CORAM

---

kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo kekere-Ekun -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abubakar Sadiq Umar -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI BAKO UBA MUHAMMAD

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ALHAJI ADO MUHAMMAD BARMA

2. ALHAJI BASHIRU AUDU

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMMERCIAL LAW, AGENCY LAW, UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case arose from a suit instituted under the undefended list procedure by the Respondents claiming N199,155,000 and $200,000 (or its equivalent of N24,400,000) from the Appellant. The Appellant filed a Counter Affidavit claiming he acted as a shareholder/agent of a company and the company was an agent of a disclosed principal. The trial court granted all reliefs to the Respondents with costs of N70,000. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, while the Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the Amended Notice of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts.

3. The Court held that the Respondents transacted with the Appellant personally, not as an agent.

4. The Court found that the Appellant failed to show any defense on merit to warrant transferring the case to the general cause list.

5. Costs of N2,000,000 were awarded in favor of the Respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Respondents transacted directly with the Appellant personally or with the Appellant as agent of Home Trust Savings and Loans Limited.?

2. Whether the concurrent judgment of the trial Court and the lower Court entered in favour of the Respondents per their claims on the Writ of Summons ought to be affirmed by the Supreme Court.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION:

---

“The Undefended List procedure is an abridged form of civil hearing designed to ensure quick dispensation of justice, but not at the expense of fair hearing. It is a special procedure designed to provide a quick channel for the recovery of debts or liquidated money claims in a situation where the Defendant has no defence to the action of the Plaintiff.”- Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

 

---

REQUIREMENTS FOR DEFENSE ON MERIT:

---

“A defence on the merit is a defence that raises some triable issue(s). To raise a defence on the merit, a Defendant must put forward some facts which cast doubt on the claim of the Plaintiff.”- Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

 

---

PROOF OF AGENCY – REQUIREMENTS:

---

“The facts necessary to support the assertion that the defendant acted as an agent of a disclosed principal must be supplied to the Court.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

TRANSFER TO GENERAL CAUSE LIST – REQUIREMENTS:

---

“The Defence must by his affidavit, be explicit with the facts that constitute the defence he wishes to rely on at the trial.

Merely saying that he has a defence or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Court and the Plaintiff by deposing to scanty facts will not be considered as a defence on the merit.” – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

 

---

EFFECT OF PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

---

“In Exhibit C, the Appellant gave a handwritten acknowledgement thus: Nakano Ado Barma brought $200,000 to be paid back insha Allah by Alh Bako Uba Mohd on Thursday 14/8/08.The Appellant also deposed at paragraph 7 of his counter-affidavit that he invested the money in Home Trust Savings and Loans Limited.

Thus, it is obvious that the Respondents transacted with the Appellant personally and he was rightly held liable.”- Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

 

---

NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL – REQUIREMENT OF LEAVE:

---

“The law is that for the Appellant to have raised a new issue on appeal before this Court, leave ought to have been sought and granted since the new points/issues were not before the Court below.”– Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS:

---

“The exhibit merely shows a list of various sums of money in dollars, date and time with signatures… Even though the document is presented as an acknowledgement by Mr. Ademosun of Home Trust Savings & Loans Ltd of money invested with it but it does not bear any information to show that the document emanated from Mr. Ademosun.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT:

---

“Even though appeal Courts would not normally disturb concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below or are reluctant or slow in doing so, the Court would however disturb, alter or set aside the lower Courts& findings of facts only if the findings are perverse.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – TIMING AND EFFECT:

---

“Where a preliminary objection has been raised as to the competence of an appeal… there is need to determine the preliminary objection first before delving into the substantive appeal if need be.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

PURPOSE OF UNDEFENDED LIST:

---

“The raison detre of the Undefended List is the need to prevent the dissipation of precious time and energy in liquidated money claims when it is apparent that the Defendant has no defence on the merit.”- Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

 

---

CONSISTENCY IN PLEADINGS:

---

“The law is that a party must be consistent with his case and not raise a different case on appeal.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

LIQUIDATED MONEY DEMAND – PROOF:

---

“The two lower Courts found that the Respondents claim was a liquidated money demand and that the appellant did not deny collecting the monies claimed.”- Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC

 

---

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – REQUIREMENTS:

---

“The affidavit must contain particulars that if proved, would constitute a defence, a mere denial would not be enough.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

No specific statutes were cited in the judgment.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENTS