CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

JOSKU NIGERIA LIMITED

---

1. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT2. MR. ADEOLA (A.K.A. ADE-BOY)3. MR. ABEJIDE AMOS4. MR. OLUSEGUN OGUNTEBI RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Sometime in February 2010, the Appellant and the 1st Respondent executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under which the Appellant supplied the 1st Respondent with Ijumu L.G.A. mobile advert clearance certificate stickers; State mobile advert certificate and stickers, and National mobile advert clearance certificate and stickers, for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. For each of these years, a total of 3,000 certificates and stickers were supplied to the 1st Respondent who was to pay the Appellant the agreed commission of 23%. The MoU was revoked by the 1st Respondent sometime in 2012 and the 1st Respondent failed to pay the agreed commission. The Appellant thereafter brought an action against the Respondents at the High Court of Justice Kogi State sitting in Iyara, claimed against the 1st and 3rd Respondents for special damages limited to N15, 000,000 being the outstanding commission due to the Appellant for goods supplied and work done for the 1st Respondent at her request. The case against the 2nd and 4th Respondents was abandoned by the Appellant at the Trial. The Statement of Defence filed by 1st and 3rd Respondents failed to comply with the relevant Rules of Court and the case was therefore determined on the Appellant’s pleadings and evidence alone. At the end of the trial, the Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim and disgruntled at this decision, the Appellant appealed to this Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether a Judge can base his judgment on his own private investigation of a document admitted without objection. If the answer to Issue One is in the negative, whether the Lower Court was right to dismiss the Claimant’s case in its entirety.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURT – DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER ALL THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE IT IN ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION

---

“Accordingly, I see no reason to further consider this Issue, save to briefly add that a Court is entitled to consider all the documents placed before it in arriving at its decision. A consideration of documents placed before a Court for its perusal, cannot in my view amount to private investigation, as argued by learned counsel for the Appellant. See the following cases: Akinola v. V.C. Unilorin (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 616; Badejo v. Federal Ministry Of Education (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 15”.-

---

TERMS OF CONTRACT- BASIS ON WHICH PARTIES CAN BE BOUND BY AN AGREEMENT

---

“The law is settled that in contracts, the parties, in other to be bound by the agreement, must be ad idem on its terms at the time of the execution; in which case they cannot be allowed to escape from its terms thereafter. See Sparkling Breweries Ltd v. Union Bank Of Nigeria Ltd (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 539. –

---

CONTRACT- ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF SANCTITY OF CONTRACT

---

“In A.G., Rivers State v. A.G., Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 31, the apex Court held as follows:
“It is elementary that where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement, they are bound by the provision of the contract or agreement… This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement.”
–

---

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF UNCHALLENGED OR UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE

---

“The Appellant in the instant appeal is challenging the dismissal of its claims by the Trial Court. He postulated that since the evidence of the Appellant is neither challenged nor controverted by the Respondents, the claims of the Appellant is bound to succeed on minimal proof. That is indeed the position of the law, as has been decided in a plethora of authorities. In Military Governor Lagos State & Ors v. Adeyiga & Ors, (2012) LPELR-7836 (SC), the apex Court held thus:
“The evaluation of evidence in the instant suit before the trial Court was based on the unchallenged evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents. The position of the law where evidence is unchallenged or uncontroverted is that such evidence will be accepted as proof of a fact it seeks to establish. A trial is entitled to rely and act on the uncontroverted or uncontradicted evidence of a plaintiff or his witness. In such a situation, there is nothing to put or weigh on the imaginary scale of justice. In the circumstance the onus of proof is naturally discharged on a minimum proof.”
–

---

EVIDENCE – GROUNDS ON WHICH A PARTY CAN SUCCEED IN A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION

---

“In my view, a claim for commission being an agreed fraction or percentage of an accrued sum of money cannot succeed unless the pleading and evidence show clearly the exact amount anticipated under the contract and that the anticipated money had in fact accrued to the party who is under obligation to pay the commission. I am not oblivious of the effort of the claimant to portray the claim as one for the recovery of the sum of money due to her from the sale of items supplied to the 1st Defendant but received by the 2nd Defendant. This inference can be drawn from paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Statement on Oath of the claimants sole witness and Exhibit C4. The Claimants case deserves to be considered from this perspective also. As hinted above, it is obvious that the MoU (exhibit C1) did not contemplate the transaction in which the claimant would supply sundry items to the 1st Defendant to sell on behalf of the claimant. The Court is not prepared to construe Exhibit C1, as authorizing such in the absence of clear and cogent evidence to that effect. The duty of the Court as I understand it, is neither to make agreements for the parties or to rewrite their agreements or read into the agreement obligations that are not consistent with the intention of the parties but rather to interpret the agreements of the parties according to their intention.’ –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT