YESUFU OGEDENGBE & ORS V CHIEF J. B. BALOGUN & ORS
June 4, 2025HON. DELE ABIODUN V. THE HON. CHIEF JUDGE OF KWARA STATE & ORS
June 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2007) Legalpedia (CA) 19443
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ENUGU
Thu Mar 15, 2007
Suit Number: CA/E/21/2005
CORAM
PARTIES
DR. BASIL EJIDIKE APPELLANTS
LIONEL OGUEJIOFOR RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent instituted an action in Onitsha High Court under the undefended list against the Defendant/Appellant for the sum of N750, 000.00 being money paid to the Defendant/Appellant for five plots of land at the Akpaka Layout, Onitsha and 20% interest per annum on the said sum from January 2002 until judgment is delivered in the Suit and 5% interest per annum from judgment until the entire sum is liquidated. At trial, the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent was that the Defendant/Appellant collected the sum of N750, 000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) from the Plaintiff/Respondent to help him secure 5 plots of land at Akpata Layout Onitsha. Upon failure of the Defendant/Appellant to provide the Plaintiff/Respondent with the plots of land a demand for refund was made by the Respondent, hence an action was instituted at the trial court. The Defendant/Appellant filed a Notice of Intention to defend with a 37 paragraph affidavit setting out his grounds of defence. The Defendant/Appellant did not deny collecting the money from the Plaintiff/Respondent. His only defence is that he was an agent of the Anambra State Government. The court after due consideration of the arguments of the parties delivered its judgment and found as a fact that the Defendant/Appellant had not satisfied the court that there was a triable issue in his Notice of Intention to defend and accordingly entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent as per his claim. Aggrieved by the decision, the Defendant/Appellant has filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Was the learned trial Judge right in holding that the Defendant’s Notice of Intention to defend has failed to raise any triable issue and accordingly refused to transfer the suit to the general cause list?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
