PATRICK NJOVENS & ORS VS THE STATE
August 15, 2025KELANI BANJO & ANOR VS LAMIDI AIYEKOTI & ANOR
August 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1973) Legalpedia (SC) 28301
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 27, 1973
Suit Number: SC. 306/1973
CORAM
ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
HACO LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff claimed for £300 which was deposited with the defendants with the interest of 6% and other costs subject to the terms and conditions agreed by both parties. The defendant paid into the Court the sum of £150: 18: 3d being the balance left in the plaintiffs deposit account together with interest. The trial Court awarded costs in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants appealed.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that there was no duty on the Supreme Court to reduce costs payable by the defendants merely because money had been paid into court. However, the defendants were on sure grounds in their contention that the decision on costs does not adequately reflect the degree of success achieved by them on the case as a whole.
ISSUES
Whether the plaintiff should only be entitled to costs up to the time money was paid into court
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE AWARD OF COSTS
“Now it is settled law that costs normally follow the event, unless there are circumstances warranting the contrary. (See Order 62 Rule 3 – Annual Practice – 1969). The award of costs involves a judicial discretion which must be exercised on fixed principles, that is according to rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion.” Per IRIKEFE, AG. JSC
CASES CITED
1. Kierson v. Thompson & Sons Ltd. (1913) 1 KB 587
2. Sharpe v. Wakefield (1891) AC 175, at p. 179
3. Wurno v. U.A.C. LTD. (1956) 1 FSC 33, at p.34
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
