CORAM

---

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Hannatu Azumi Laja-balogun Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ishaq Mohammed Sani Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED

2. GE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (NIG.) LTD

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case arose from a commercial dispute in the oil and gas industry. The 1st Respondent (Q Oil & Gas Services Limited), an independent contractor providing expatriate employees for the oil and gas industry, had entered into a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with the 2nd Respondent (GE International Operations Nigeria Limited). The 1st Respondent also had employment contracts with two expatriate employees, Kadirvelu Varadharaja Perumal and G. Muralidharan, whom it provided to the 2nd Respondent under the MSA.

The 1st Respondent’s case was that the Appellant (Renco Nigeria Limited) and the 2nd Respondent unlawfully conspired to induce Perumal and Muralidharan to breach their employment contracts with the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent alleged that these employees were induced with monetary incentives to abandon their contracts and work for the 2nd Respondent through the Appellant, who was a competitor of the 1st Respondent in the business of providing personnel services.

The 1st Respondent filed suit at the High Court of Rivers State on 13th March 2009, seeking declarations that the conduct of the Appellant and 2nd Respondent constituted wrongful interference with contract, and claiming special damages of $2,917,960.00 and exemplary damages of $9,000,000.00. The matter proceeded to trial where extensive documentary evidence was tendered, including email correspondences between the parties.

The trial court, presided over by Honourable Justice A. Enebeli, delivered judgment on 6th October 2020, finding in favour of the 1st Respondent. The court declared that the Appellant and 2nd Respondent had wrongfully interfered with the 1st Respondent’s employment contracts and awarded $5,000,000 as exemplary damages, though no special damages were awarded. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State was set aside.

2.The Court held that the trial court erred in finding that the Appellant had induced the 1st Respondent’s employees to breach their contracts.

3.The Court found that the trial court’s conclusion was based on speculation and emotion rather than factual analysis of the evidence.

4.The Court held that Kadirvelu Varadharaja Perumal and G. Muralidharan were not necessary parties to the suit.

5.The Court set aside the award of $5,000,000 exemplary damages.

6.Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant cajoled Kadirvelu Varadharaja Perumal and G. Muralidharan, employees of the 1st Respondent, to leave their employment with the 1st Respondent and work for the 2nd Respondent through the Appellant?

2.Whether, in the entire circumstances of this case, the learned trial Judge was right to have discountenanced the submission of counsel in saying that Kadirvelu Varadharaja Perumal and G. Muralidharan are necessary parties for the Claimant to prove its case of inducement, termination of contract and/or breach of contract?

3.Whether, in the entire circumstances of this case and the evidence led, the learned trial Judge was right to have awarded damages for economic loss and/or additional punitive or exemplary damages against the Appellant?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

---

“The law is trite that by virtue of Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts has to prove that those facts exist. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – CLAIMANT’S DUTY TO PROVE HIS CASE

---

“The 1st Respondent can only secure a favourable judgment on the strength of her case as established by legal evidence and not on the weakness or absence of the defence. Therefore, the legal burden to prove the facts upon which the success of her case depended rested squarely on her.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

JUDICIAL REASONING – DUTY OF TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE CASES ON EVIDENCE

---

“The law is well settled that the duty of a trial Court is to determine cases based on the facts established at trial and it must not impair the evidence with its personal knowledge of matters not placed before it. Courts are enjoined to arrive at their verdicts through a process of reasoning which is analytical. The verdicts must not only command confidence but must be punctuated with logical thinking based on cogent and admissible evidence.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

APPELLATE COURT FUNCTIONS – DUTY TO RE-EXAMINE EVIDENCE

---

“The Apex Court and this Court has stated in a plethora of cases that the main function of an Appellate Court is to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence received by the trial Court. This is achieved by examining the whole Record of Appeal before it.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

EVIDENCE ANALYSIS – REQUIREMENT FOR PROPER EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

---

“The lower Court had mentioned in its judgment that the suit before it was purely dependent on documentary evidence, hence it is the best evidence wherein oral testimonies should hang or rest on. Yet, without any analysis and evaluation of the tons of documentary evidence tendered before him, stating the effect of each of the relevant Exhibits on the case of each of the parties before him, the learned trial Judge concluded that the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent induced, enticed, manipulated and encouraged Perumal and Muralid to breach their contract with the 1st Respondent.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS

---

“The law insists that where there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by a party, the Court is enjoined to reject the entire evidence as it cannot pick and choose which of the conflicting versions to follow.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

PROPER PARTIES – DETERMINATION OF PROPER PARTIES TO A SUIT

---

“The law is trite that to determine whether a defendant is a proper party in a suit or that a cause of action exists against him, a Court must confine itself to the Originating Process of the Plaintiff to see whether there is anything in it that connects the Defendant to the subject matter of the suit. If there is nothing in the Originating Process that connects the Defendant to the suit, then the Defendant is not a proper party.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

PROPER PARTIES – EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF PROPER PARTIES ON JURISDICTION

---

“It is now fairly settled that the question of proper parties is a very important issue, which would affect the jurisdiction of the Court since it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. In effect, where the proper parties are not before the Court then the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or hear the suit. It is only when proper parties are before the Court that the Court is competent to adjudicate on a suit.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

NECESSARY PARTIES – DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS

---

“A necessary party is that person whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the Court. It is a party in the absence of whom the whole claim cannot be effectually and completely determined. However, while it is the law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of any party, yet in the absence of a proper party or necessary party before the Court, it appears an exercise in futility for the Court to make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit who was never heard or given an opportunity to defend himself.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFINITION AND WHEN IT ARISES

---

“A cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. And the wrong which is the basis of a dispute represents a factual situation which entitles the Plaintiff to seek a remedy in a Court of law by way of enforcement. To ascertain when the cause of action arose, it is expedient to look at the claim of the Plaintiff and the reliefs sought.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – NATURE AND PURPOSE

---

“In law, exemplary damages, as the name implies, are damages on an increased scale over and above special or actual or ordinary damages. It is only awarded in aggravated circumstances and are thus, punitive in nature to address proven act of recklessness. Thus, damages are ‘punitive’ or ‘exemplary’ when they are awarded by way of punishment of the Defendant, or as a deterrent and are for atonement for the Claimant’s loss.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – CIRCUMSTANCES FOR AWARD

---

“Exemplary damages are awarded whenever the defendants conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as in cases where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, flagrant disregard of the law and the like. However, the award of such nature of damages should be moderate; the means of the parties must be considered and it being true that while a small exemplary award would go unnoticed by a rich defendant, it is equally true that even a modest award might cripple a poor defendant.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – REQUIREMENT TO PROVE ACTUAL LOSS

---

“It is the law that in order to be entitled to exemplary damages, a Plaintiff or Claimant must, at trial, prove the actual loss or damages he suffered as a result of the wrongful action of the Defendant.” – Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 131, 132 and 133)

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (Section 36)

Court of Appeal Rules

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT