Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 08235 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Thu May 25, 2023

Suit Number: CA/K/292/2020

CORAM

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI JCA

Mohammed Baba Idris JCA

Muslim Sule Hassan JCA

PARTIES

OLALEYE R. OLUWAKEMI

APPELLANTS

1. AYANDEJI SOLOMON

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, COMPANY, CONTRACT, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent (plaintiff at trial court), a businessman who trades under the name and style of Solab Ventures got to know the Appellant through her company Promasidor Nigeria Limited and she was attached to the Respondent office as a sale representative of the said company and she worked under him for some time. The Respondent stated that the Appellant approached him to supply goods to her on credit and she promised to make payment for the goods within a month after supply without any delay or protest.

The Respondent’s claims that on the 5th day of November, 2018 he supplied to the Appellant goods worth ₦1,482,540.00 (One Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Naira Only), which items were sold and packaged for her. Before the expiration of the first month of his supply to the Appellant, she approached him again to make more supply which he did. The supply totaling ₦1, 685, 390.00 as outstanding debt to the Respondent has not been paid since the goods were supplied to the Appellant despite several demands. The Respondent’s instructed his lawyer to write a letter of demand to the Appellant which the Appellant received and acknowledged but without positive results.

The Appellant on the other hand claimed that the transaction she had with Solab Ventures had been fully discharged and payment made to the company but the Respondent has been holding on with the evidence of payment.

The Trial Court in her considered judgment entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (Respondent) before this Court. The Appellant was aggrieved with the decision of the Trial Court hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed in part

ISSUES

Ø Whether the Respondent as constituted on the face of process has locus standi to institute the matter at the trial court?

Ø Whether the Appellant’s statement of defense at the trial court disclose any triable issue sufficient enough to warrant leave to transfer the suit to the general cause list?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT– JURISTIC PERSONS

In order for the jurisdiction of the court to be invoked, the parties before the court must be juristic personalities recognized by law. The parties may be natural or artificial persons. The court cannot assume jurisdiction over non-existent personalities who the law does not recognize. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

BUSINESS NAME – WHETHER A BUSINESS NAME CAN INSTITUTE AN ACTION

It is the law that a business name per se cannot institute an action, however it is desirable that the Respondent identified that he trade under the name and style of Solab Ventures clearly on the face of the writ. However, that does not in itself alone deprive the Respondent from suing in his personal name, having being the person running the business, and having so indicated in his pleading. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

COURTS – WHEN A COURT SHOULD TRANSFER A MATTER TO THE GENERAL COURSE LIST

The law allows the court to transfer a matter for summary judgment as in the instant case to the general cause list where the Defendant shows some reasonable defence. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

CASES CITED

NIL

STATUTES REFERRED TO

 

1. Kaduna State High Court Procedure Rules (2007)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT