BENEDICT AGWUNEDU & ORS. VS CHRISTOPHER ONWUMERE
July 9, 2025MA’AJI GALADIMA V. ALHAJI ADAMU TAMBAI & ORS
July 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994-01) Legalpedia 90262 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Jan 28, 1994
Suit Number: S.C 74/1992
CORAM
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CARLEN (NIG.) LIMITED
APPELLANTS
UNIVERSITY OF JOS & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
BREACH OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff, a limited liability Company entered into a contract with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Jos for the construction of Faculties of Environmental Sciences and Education at the Permanent site of the University in Jos at a total cost of N28,09 million. It was the Registrar of the University that signed the contract, presumably on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute between the parties to it. The contract was partly executed and some payments made by the University to the plaintiff before a dispute arose between the parties leading to the termination of the contract by the Vice-Chancellor. The Plaintiff instituted an action at the High Court against the University of Jos and the Council of the University as defendants claiming by its amended Statement of Claim a total sum of N11, 358, 000.00. While the case for the defense was still on, leading counsel for the defendants filed a motion praying for an order directing the plaintiff to give security for costs in this matter, and striking out the action on the ground that it was incompetent. The first prayer was abandoned at the hearing and was consequently struck out. Dissatisfied with the decision, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal but it was not allowed. Being dissatisfied with the judgment the plaintiff, further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the court below was set aside and the ruling of the trial court dismissing defendants’ application to dismiss the suit was restored.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to determine the issue of execution of Exhibit 1 or 15 by the Vice Chancellor or the Registrar having regard to the only ground of appeal before them?
2. Whether the decision of the learned Justices of Appeal to strike out the names of the Defendants as parties to this suit is not wrong in law?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST RELATE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“Issues for determination formulated in a Brief must arise out of and be related to the grounds of appeal relied upon in support of the appeal and any issue not encompassed by nor relating to the ground(s) must be struck out.” Per EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
ANYONE MAY SUE AND BE SUED
“The general law, of course, is that any person, natural or artificial, may sue and be sued in court. There can be no difficulty in determining who a natural person is.” Per EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON
“An artificial person is generally referred to as a corporation.” Per EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
“A contract made by an agent, acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal is, in law, the contract of the principal, and the principal and not the agent is the proper person to sue or be sued upon such contract.” Per EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JSC
CASES CITED
Okoye and ors. v. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & ors (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501
Egbe v. Yusuf (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245)1.
Fawehinmi v. N.B.A & Ors. (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558
STATUTES REFERRED TO
