ABDUN KAKA V. MALAMI NAGWANJA
June 25, 2025ALERUCHI ETCHESON NSIRIM V ONUMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (NIGERIA LTD.)
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 01116
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 9, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 178/1995
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
MAMMAN NASIR
MOHAMMADU LAWAL UWIAS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
INTERNATIONAL BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff, a bank in the ordinary course of its business advanced a loan to the defendant at a fixed rate of interest and the loan was to be repaid within a stipulated period. The defendant later defaulted in repaying the principal sum and the interest, the appellant then sued to recover the advanced loan and claims interest at the rate agreed upon by the parties under the contract of guarantee.
HELD
The court held that notwithstanding the provision of S. 96 of the evidence act, the admission of a document not ex-facie illegal does not occasion any miscarriage of justice and moreover, there was oral evidence before the court to support the facts contained in the admitted document and the facts therein was not challenged by the during trial.
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in over-ruling the decision of the High Court which in its judgment rejected the statement of the 1st defendant’s account with the plaintiff (exhibit 5) for non-compliance with section 96(2)(e) of the then Evidence Act, Cap 62, Laws of Nigeria, 1958 Edition which the High Court had earlier admitted in evidence without any objection by the two Defendants.(2) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, even excluding the statement of account (exhibit 5), the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the full amount of N238, 203.27 together with interest at 11.5% claimed based on (a) the pleadings and/or (b) the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the trial.(3) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in giving judgment against the appellant in the sum of N238, 203.27 with interest considering the provisions of the Deed of Guarantee (exhibit 4) executed by the appellant in favour of the Respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PLEADINGS -FACTS INTENDED TO BE PROVED IN A TRAL MUST BE PLEADED.
Evidence at the trial must be confined to the issues settled by the parties in their pleadings. PER IGUH JSC
OBJECTIONS TO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES MUST BE RAISED DURING TRIAL
Where a party to a civil proceedings consent to an irregular procedure at the trial which does not amount to a nullity or caused him injustice, it will be too late to complain of such irregular procedure on appeal. PER IGUH JSC
CASES CITED
Ibrahim Yassin v. Barclays Bank D.C.O. (1968) 1. AII N.L.R. 171 Abolade Alade v. Salawu Olukade (1976) 10 N.S.C.C. 34 Festus Yesufu v. ACB Ltd. (1976) 1 N.M.L.R. 83; (1976) 4 S.C.1Mallam Yaya v. Mogoga (197) 12 W.A. C. A 132 at 133Ajayi v. Fisher (1956) S.C.N.L.R. 279Esso West Africa Incorporated v. Ali (1968) N.M.L.R. 414 at 423.Oba Ipinlaiye II v. Chief Julius Olukotun (1996) 6 N.W.L.R. (Part 453) 148, Akhiwu v. The Principal Lotteries Officer Mid-Western State of Nigeria and another (1972) AII N.L.R (Part 1) 229 at 238,Ayanwale and others v. Atanda and Another (1988) 1 N.W.L.R (Part 68) 22, Okwechime v. Philip Igbinadolor (1964) N.M.L.R. 132. Okeke v. Obidife and others (1965) 4 N.SC Gilbert v. Endean (1978) 9 Ch. D. 259 at 269Chief Bruno Etim and others v. Chief Okon Udo Ekpe and Another (1983) 3 S.C.12; (1983) 1 S.C. N.L.R
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, Cap.62, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958
