GANI FAWEHINMI VS NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (NO. 2)
July 17, 2025THE STATE VS PAUL ADILI
July 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1989) Legalpedia (SC) 11814
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Mar 13, 1989
Suit Number: SC.27/1997
CORAM
S. M. A. BELGORE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M. E. OGUNDARE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E. O. OGWUEGBU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAMMAN NASIR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
ARTRA INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The defendant/respondent, a Development Bank whose principal function is to provide equity capital and funds by way of loans to indigenous medium and long term investment in industry and commerce granted a loan to the plaintiff, a limited liability company to finance a project for the production of medicated cotton wool and bandages. The plaintiff however incurred losses, the losses were allegedly caused by the defendant, unhappy about this trend and the plaintiff/appellant filed the action culminating in the present appeal.
HELD
The court held that it was proper for the judgment of the lower court to have been set aside not being the result of a proper appraisal and evaluation of the evidence.?
ISSUES
1. Whether the court below was right when it held that the loan granted to the plaintiff was provided by the World Bank and that the said bank was the principal of the defendant as well as Midland Bank 2. Whether the court below was right when it held that even if the Midland Bank was the defendant’s agent, the defendant cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent act of the Midland Bank without the latter being joined as a party. 3. Whether having regard to the totality of evidence adduced at the trial court, the court below was right in setting aside the decision of the trial court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
A DOCUMENT MUST BE WHOLLY INTERPRETED IN AN AGREEMENT
In interpreting a document, due regard must be given to the entire document so as to find out the correct meaning of the word in relation to the agreement. Per S. U. Onu.
WHERE THERE IS BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
It is well established that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. Per S. U. Onu
CASES CITED
Schroeder & Co. v. Major & Co. (Nig.) Ltd (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1.Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 8-11 sc. 130;Mandara v. A.G. of Federation of Nigeria (1984) 1 SC 311 (1984) 1 SCNLR 311Nwobosi v. The State (1995) 6 NWLR (Part 404) 658 at 683.Kimdey & 11 Ors v. The Military Governor of Gongola State & or5. (1988) 2 NWLR (Part 77) 449.?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT (C.A.M.A)
