Just Decided Cases

MAINSTREET BANK LIMITED VS GENERAL STEEL MILLS LIMITED

Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 71161

In the Court of Appeal

Fri May 27, 2016

Suit Number: CA/L/906/2013

CORAM


 CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI  JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


MAINSTREET BANK LIMITED APPELLANTS


GENERAL STEEL MILLS LIMITEDGENERAL PIPE INDUSTRY LIMITEDUNITED METAL PLASTICS LIMITEDINTERNATIONAL ENAMEL WARE INDUSTRY LIMITED? RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiffs now Respondents instituted this suit at the Federal High Court against the Defendant now Appellant which suit was subsequently abandoned by the Appellant. The Respondents thus opened their case in the absence of the Appellant or his counsel. The case of the Appellant was closed and consequently adjourned for final address. However another counsel was substituted for the Appellant who by a Motion on Notice sought for the case to be re-opened. The Respondents opposed the application and the court in its ruling refused the application to have the case re-opened for the defense to be heard. The court however entered judgement in favour of the Respondents and this has prompted the Appellant to appeal against same.


HELD


Appeal Allowed


ISSUES


?    The learned trial Judge erred in law when the Court delivered its Judgment and held that the Defendant was given ample opportunities but failed, refused and/or neglected to defend the suit and present its case before the Court??    The Honorable Court misdirected itself when on the one hand the Court relied wholly on the case of and submissions of the Plaintiffs (now Respondents) and held that their testimony was unchallenged and as such deemed admitted by the Defendant, was unchallenged and as such deemed admitted by the Defendant, and on the other hand regarding the Written Final Address submitted by the Defendant (now Appellant) held that submissions that are not backed by evidence goes to no issue. So also a pleading that is not supported by evidence is deemed abandoned??    Whether the Honorable Court did not misdirect itself when it awarded the sum of #33,891,342.33 (Thirty Three Million, Eight Hundred and Ninety one Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Two Naira, Thirty Three Kobo) as money deducted from the Plaintiffs account and interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 21 % from December2007till judgment and 6% from the date of judgment until it is finally liquidated?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)Evidence Act, 2011(as amended)Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

Recent Posts

DISTRICT OFFICER VS THE QUEEN

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-02) Legalpedia 87747 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago

ABIGAIL FOLASHADE VS ALHAJI A. A. O. DUROSHOLA

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-03) Legalpedia 60139 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago

OKUPE M. A. VS G. O. LAJA

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-03) Legalpedia 45232 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago

OGOR MICHAEL VS THE QUEEN

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-03) Legalpedia 39250 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago

LAYUNJU VS EMMANUEL ARAOYE

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-03) Legalpedia 08800 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago

MOBIL OIL (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS J.M. JOHNSON

Legalpedia Citation: (1961-03) Legalpedia 92174 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

6 hours ago