CORAM
ELIAS CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MESSR. JAMMAL ENGINEERING CO.LTD. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff claimed against the defendant the sum of £670:3:6d. (Six Hundred and Seventy Pounds, Three Shillings and Six Pence) as due to the plaintiff and payable by the defendant and as balance of the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendant at its request in Lagos during the years 1962-64 as per the attached statement of account.
HELD
The trial Judges exercise of his discretion in entering judgment for the Plaintiffs/Respondents with costs had been right in the circumstances of this particular case when the defendant was represented by counsel but did not see fit to make any application for an extension of time in which to seek to defend or indeed in any way show a desire to defend the claim at all.
ISSUES
Whether the trial judge rightly exercised its discretion?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION
According to the rule the judge must in each case exercise his discretion; By Rule 1 of Order XlV, the plaintiff must specially endorse the writ, there must be an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed, and stating that there is no defence to the action. The judge, even though the defendant made no answer, was not bound to give the plaintiff leave to enter final judgment. If the defendant satisfied the judge that he had a good defence on the merits, the judge could not make an order empowering the plaintiff to enter judgment; but the judge must be satisfied. If the defendant disclosed such facts as might be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that fell short of satisfying the judge that he had a good defence.Per Taslim Olawale Elias, JSC
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION
According to the rule the judge must in each case exercise his discretion; By Rule 1 of Order XlV, the plaintiff must specially endorse the writ, there must be an affidavit verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed, and stating that there is no defence to the action. The judge, even though the defendant made no answer, was not bound to give the plaintiff leave to enter final judgment. If the defendant satisfied the judge that he had a good defence on the merits, the judge could not make an order empowering the plaintiff to enter judgment; but the judge must be satisfied. If the defendant disclosed such facts as might be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that fell short of satisfying the judge that he had a good defence.Per Taslim Olawale Elias, JSC<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
Khawam v. Elias (1960) 5 FSC 224
Kudoro v. Alaka (1956) 1 FSC 82
Shumur v. Young 5 TLR 155
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Old English Rules
High Court of Lagos Rules