APPEAL, DAMAGES, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAW OF CONTRACT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Respondent as Plaintiff instituted an action against the Appellant as Defendant at the High Court of Rivers State claiming the following reliefs; a declaration that the Master Services Agreement between the claimant and the Defendant is still valid and subsisting, a declaration that the act of the Defendant in rejecting Mr. Raja Kumar a contract staff supplied by the Plaintiff/ Respondent to the Defendant/Appellant, pursuant to the Master Services Agreement between the Plaintiff/ Respondent and the Defendant/Appellant without any reason whatsoever amounts to a breach of the said contract, a declaration that the Defendant/Appellant’s refusal of the Plaintiff/ Respondent to fill the vacant slot/position of the contract staff as provided in their agreement is wrongful, illegal and unlawful and therefore amounts to a breach of contract, the sum of twenty thousand US Dollars ($20,000) being money spent by the Plaintiff/ Respondent, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand US Dollars ($500,000), only against the Defendant/Appellant being payment due to the Plaintiff/Respondent for five years of the contract of skilled labour supplied by the Plaintiff/Respondent to the Defendant/Appellant, and general damages in the sum of Five Million US Dollars ($5,000,000) only against the Defendant/Appellant for breach of contract. The trial Court in its considered judgment granted the reliefs as prayed. Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was struck out for being incompetent as there was no evidence that the Defendant/Appellant paid any fee for the filing of the appeal. Further dissatisfied, the Defendant/Appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:
Appeal Allowed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
➢    Whether the lower Court was right when it suo motu struck out the appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 19 September 2013 on the ground of non-payment of filing fees.

➢    Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Respondent’s witness statement on oath constitutes evidence on which the trial Court rightly granted default judgment in favour of the Respondent in respect of its claims for declaratory reliefs, special and general damages?

➢    Whether the award of the sums of US$5,000,000 (five million US Dollars) as general damages in addition to the sum of US$520,000 (five hundred twenty thousand dollars) upheld by the lower Court are based on the same facts and amount to double compensation to the Respondent in respect of the same alleged items of loss.

➢     Whether the lower Court’s findings with respect to the award of special damages is inconsistent, when having held that the sum awarded as special damages includes compensation for expenses, time, energy and inconveniences suffered by the claimant in recruiting a competent worker for the Appellant, the Court also held in another breath that the said award does not include the compensation for the said items of damages?

RATIONES:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – BASIS FOR STRIKING OUT AN APPEAL
“It is only where all the grounds of appeal can be said to be incompetent that the appeal is liable to be struck out. See Agbatua v. Amadi (1998) 11 NWLR {Pt 572) 16; Buzu v. Garabi (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt 684) 228.” PER. N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

GROUND OF APPEAL – WHETHER ONE GROUND OF APPEAL CAN SAVE AN APPEAL FROM BEING STRUCK OUT AS INCOMPETENT.
“One competent ground can save the appeal from being struck out as incompetent.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

MISTAKE OF REGISTRY – WHETHER A LITIGANT CAN BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR THE MISTAKE OF THE REGISTRY
“On no account should a litigant be made to suffer for the mistake of the Registry as is apparent in this appeal. See Akpaji v. Udembu (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt 11} 38 at 545.”  PER N.S. NGWUTA,J.S.C.

DECLARATION OF RIGHT – DUTY REQUIRED OF A PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF A RIGHT.
“In an action for declaration of a right, the plaintiff must satisfy the Court by credible evidence that he is entitled to the right he claims.
The claim for declaration cannot be granted on admission of the defendant. See Fabunmi v. Agbe (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 2) 799; Ochomma v. Unogi (1965) NMLR 32. In my view, the evidence to support a claim for declaration can be oral or documentary.” PER N.S. NGWUTA,J.S.C.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT – GROUNDS UPON WHICH A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CAN BE ENTERED IN FAVOUR OF A PLAINTIFF
In the application for judgment in default judgment, the respondent relied on the witness statement. The application was granted pursuant to Order 20 Rule 9 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2010 hereunder reproduced: Order 20 Rule l of the 2006 Rules provides:
“If the sum claimed is only for a debt or liquidated demand, and the defendant does not within the time allowed for such purpose/ file a defence, the claimant may at the expiration of such time, apply for final judgment of the amount claimed with costs.”
“Under this rule, judgment could be entered for the plaintiff in default based on the statement of claim. The requirement that a plaintiff must by credible evidence satisfy the court that he is entitled to the declaratory relief he claims is satisfied by the witness statement made on oath pursuant to the 2006 Rules of the Rivers state High Court.
“Order 20 Rule 9:
ln all actions other than those in the preceding Rules of this Order, if the defendant makes default in filing a defence, the claimant may apply to a judge for judgment and such judgment shall be given upon the statement of claim as the judge shall consider the claimant to be entitled to.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

BREACH OF CONTRACT – PRINCIPLE OF ASSESSMENT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
“The principle of assessment for breach of contract is restitution in integrum, that is, the plaintiff in so far as money can do it shall be restored into the position in which he would have been if the breach did not occur. See Umuoetuk v. Union Bank Plc (2001) FWLR (Pt 81) 1849 ratio 8. The terms, general and special damages, are not apt in the categorization of damages for breach of contract – P2 & 10 Ltd v, Ogedengbe (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt 1) 203; Barau v. Cubuits Nig Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 152) 630.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

RESTITUTION IN INTEGRUM – PRINCIPLE OF RESTITUTION IN INTEGRUM
“However, the principle of restitution in integrum is not restitution in opulentium. It is not meant to give a windfall to the respondent. see Umuoekuk v. Union Bank Plc {supra) ratio 2; Shell 8P v. Jammal Engineering Ltd (1974)4 SC 33.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.

BREACH OF CONTRACT – NATURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
“The Law is well settled that where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally that is, according to the usual course of things from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of breach of it. In other words if one party to a contract is in breach of its terms, the other party is entitled to bring an action for damages so as to be placed in the same financial position as if the contractual terms had been duly carried out. See Had Ley Vs Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341, and S.B.N, PLC VS Opanubi (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt.896) 437.”PER M. MOHAMMED, CJN.

STATUTES REFERRED TO:
Court of Appeal, 2011
Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006