MR. AKINFELA FRANK COLE V MR ADIM JIBUNOH & ORS
April 26, 2025CHIEF MAXI OKWU & ANOR V CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS
April 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 11078
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 15, 2016
Suit Number: SC.143/2006
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OL4TOKUMBO KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
B. O. LEWIS APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff now Respondent sued the Defendant now Appellant in the Lagos State High Court claiming the sum of N1, 349.671.54 being the total outstanding principal and interest in respect of loans granted to the Appellant by the Respondent for the purchase of a car and an ordinary loan which was granted in the course of his employment. Monthly deductions were being made from his salary to repay same until his employment was terminated leaving an outstanding sum of N1, 349,697.54. The Appellant filed his defence and a counter claim. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a summons for judgment under Order 11, Rule 1 and 2 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994, for summary judgment. The Appellant filed an Affidavit showing cause and also claimed damages for wrongful termination of employment. After considering the arguments of counsel, the trial Court entered summary judgment against the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied by the decision of the lower court, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have determined the liability of the Appellant in respect of the car loan within the context of Exhibit B alone when the agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent was reduced to a form of series of documents/correspondence including Exhibits C &D?
2. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Appellant’s effort as contained in the Statement of Defence and Affidavit showing cause was a sham and as such he was not entitled to the leave to defend the action?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
“The attitude of the Supreme Court to concurrent findings of fact has been reiterated in a plethora of authorities. In Ogundiyan Vs The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519 @ 528-529 H-A this court held per Obaseki, JSC:
“without any clear evidence of errors in law or fact leading to or occasioning miscarriage of justice, this court will not interfere with the concurrent findings. It is settled law that there must be clear proof of error either of law or fact on the record which has occasioned miscarriage of justice before the Supreme Court can upset or reverse concurrent findings of fact,”
Per Nnaemaka-Agu, JSC in Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509 @:
It is settled that where there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact by two lower courts, such findings should not be disturbed unless there is a substantial error apparent on the record: that is, the findings have been shown to be perverse, or some miscarriage of justice or some material violation of some principle of law or procedure is shown.”
See also: Iyaro Vs The State (1988), NWLR (Pt. 69)256: Nasamu Vs the State (1979)6-9 SC 153: Mainagge Vs Gwamma (2004)14 NWLR (Pt. 893)323: Gbadamosi Vs Dairo (2007)3 NWLR (Pt. 1021)282”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS -ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“That is the fabric on which the two Courts below made their concurrent findings and nothing is afoot to persuade this Court into a different reasoning since credible evidence on record support the findings and no inadmissible evidence brought in and the evaluation of the evidence and the probative value ascribed appropriately by those two Lower Courts. Also there being no miscarriage of justice, the natural consequence is for me to go along”. I place reliance on Ogun v Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 362; Fashanu v Adekasa (1974) 6 SC 83; Otun v Otun (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 893) 381.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTRACT-HOW A CONTRACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
“In the construction of a contract, the meaning to be placed on it is that which is the plain, clear and obvious result of the terms used. A contract or document is to be construed in its ordinary meaning, When the language of a contract is not only plain but admits of one meaning, the task of interpretation is negligible”. See: Union Bank of Nig. Ltd & Anr Vs Nwaokolo (1995)6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 127: Aouad & Anor Vs Kessrawani (1956) 1 FSC 35: Nwangwu Vs Nzekwu & Anor (1957) 3 FSC 36: Orient Bank (Nig) Plc Vs Bilante Int. Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37 @ 78 B-D”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTRACT-HOW A CONTRACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
“In the construction of a contract, the meaning to be placed on it is that which is the plain, clear and obvious result of the terms used. A contract or document is to be construed in its ordinary meaning, When the language of a contract is not only plain but admits of one meaning, the task of interpretation is negligible”. See: Union Bank of Nig. Ltd & Anr Vs Nwaokolo (1995)6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 127: Aouad & Anor Vs Kessrawani (1956) 1 FSC 35: Nwangwu Vs Nzekwu & Anor (1957) 3 FSC 36: Orient Bank (Nig) Plc Vs Bilante Int. Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37 @ 78 B-D”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
TERMS OF A CONTRACT – THE EXPRESS TERMS OF A CONTRACT CANNOT BE VARIED
“These express terms of a contract cannot therefore be varied or modified by anything outside of those terms.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PURPOSE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
“The summary judgment procedure is for disposing of cases which are virtually uncontested with dispatch. It applies to cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay. It is for the plain and straight forward, not for the devious and crafty”. See U.B.A. Plc Vs Jargaba (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247 @ 270 F-H per I.T. Muhammad, JSC; Shodipo Vs Leminkainen OY (19861 1 NWLR (Pt. 151 230: Adebisi Macgregor Ass. Ltd. Vs N.M.B. Ltd (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 378: (1996) 2 SCNJ 72 @ 81”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS -ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“That is the fabric on which the two Courts below made their concurrent findings and nothing is afoot to persuade this Court into a different reasoning since credible evidence on record support the findings and no inadmissible evidence brought in and the evaluation of the evidence and the probative value ascribed appropriately by those two Lower Courts. Also there being no miscarriage of justice, the natural consequence is for me to go along”. I place reliance on Ogun v Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 362; Fashanu v Adekasa (1974) 6 SC 83; Otun v Otun (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 893) 381.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
“The attitude of the Supreme Court to concurrent findings of fact has been reiterated in a plethora of authorities. In Ogundiyan Vs The State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519 @ 528-529 H-A this court held per Obaseki, JSC:
“without any clear evidence of errors in law or fact leading to or occasioning miscarriage of justice, this court will not interfere with the concurrent findings. It is settled law that there must be clear proof of error either of law or fact on the record which has occasioned miscarriage of justice before the Supreme Court can upset or reverse concurrent findings of fact,”
Per Nnaemaka-Agu, JSC in Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509 @:
It is settled that where there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact by two lower courts, such findings should not be disturbed unless there is a substantial error apparent on the record: that is, the findings have been shown to be perverse, or some miscarriage of justice or some material violation of some principle of law or procedure is shown.”
See also: Iyaro Vs The State (1988), NWLR (Pt. 69)256: Nasamu Vs the State (1979)6-9 SC 153: Mainagge Vs Gwamma (2004)14 NWLR (Pt. 893)323: Gbadamosi Vs Dairo (2007)3 NWLR (Pt. 1021)282”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
TERMS OF A CONTRACT – THE EXPRESS TERMS OF A CONTRACT CANNOT BE VARIED
“These express terms of a contract cannot therefore be varied or modified by anything outside of those terms.” PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PURPOSE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
“The summary judgment procedure is for disposing of cases which are virtually uncontested with dispatch. It applies to cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay. It is for the plain and straight forward, not for the devious and crafty”. See U.B.A. Plc Vs Jargaba (2007)11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247 @ 270 F-H per I.T. Muhammad, JSC; Shodipo Vs Leminkainen OY (19861 1 NWLR (Pt. 151 230: Adebisi Macgregor Ass. Ltd. Vs N.M.B. Ltd (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 378: (1996) 2 SCNJ 72 @ 81”. PER K. M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994.
