ROYAL SECURITY GUARDS SERVICE LTD V. UNITY BANK PLC

CORAM

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE O. AWOTOYE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

C. IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

ROYAL SECURITY GUARDS SERVICE LTD

APPELLANTS

UNITY BANK PLC

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

ACTION, CIVIL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant instituted an action against the Respondent at the trial Court seeking among other reliefs a declaration that through the domiciliary agreement signed between the Ministry for Local Government Affairs and the Respondent, the facility given by the Respondent has been paid to its satisfaction. The Appellant further claimed that the sum of N16, 607,000 in excess of the facility had been paid to the Respondent. The Respondent on the other hand denied any such payment.

Consequently, the trial Court found that the Appellant failed to lead credible evidence to establish its claims and accordingly delivered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the trial Court’s decision, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal before this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Was the learned trial Judge right to hold that the evidence of Pw1 and exhibits tendered by him the Appellant has not proved its case on preponderance of evidence required – thus dismissing the Appellant’s case?

2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in placing so much reliance on exhibit G in dismissing the case the Appellant.

3. Was the learned trial judge right in holding that evidence elicited under cross-examination is as valid and authentic as evidence given during examination in chief when same is not pleaded?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DECLARATORY RELIEFS- BURDEN/ONUS OF PROOF

“This is a declaratory action where the plaintiff must prove his case not minding any admissions or default or pleading by the defendant. See OKONKWO & ORS VS OKONKWO & ORS (2010) 14NWLR PART 1213 P. 228, IFEDIORA & ORS VS OKAFOR & ORS (2019) LPELR – 49518 (S.C)

According to ABBA AJI JSC in IFEDIORA case

“It is settled and well established that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission. The plaintiff who sought for such relief must prove and succeed on the strength of his case not rely on the weakness of the defence the burden of proof on the plaintiff is establishing declaratory relief to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence”. –Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- WHETHER A PARTY IS BOUND BY DOCUMENT NOT SIGNED BY SUCH A PARTY

“The learned trial judge had this to say on EXHIBIT G. on pages 248 – 249 of the record of appeal.

“I have taken the hang pain to cross check the 5 times lodgment from Exhibit G in exhibit B and D but I could not find out same to be either deducted or withheld sum, as alleged by the plaintiff and confirmed by it’s counsel in his address before the court Exhibit G to me is nothing but a mere investigation of the plaintiff who prepared it solely without any input from the Defendant, yet want me to hold it against the Defendant who do hold it against the Defendant who do not succinctly to it contents, same made after a meeting held indebted duly concede it as such by the plaintiff himself under cross examination. A party can only be bound by the content of any document when such party has accepted some by affixing his signature on it. Exhibit G can only had the plaintiff if the parties have signed and executed it but from the face of the said Exhibit it was a self prepared document by the Pw1 without duly executing it by the Defendant and those it is not binding on the Defendant and no court of law could impose it on the Defendant who have not executed it.” I entirely agree with the above view of his lordship. Exhibit G cannot bind the defendant.” – Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A

PLEADINGS- WHETHER PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

“It is trite law that parties are bound by their respective pleadings. See AKPAPUNA & ORS VS NZEKA & ORS (1983) LPELR – 384(SC) ACHONVU VS OKUWOBI (2017) LPELR – 42102 (SC) etc. Evidence which is at variance with the pleadings goes to no issue and shall be disregarded by the court. See METALIMEPEX VS LEVENTIS NIG. LTD (1976) 2SC. 91, NJOKU VS EME (1973) 5 SC. 293.”- Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A

EVIDENCE- EFFECT OF EVIDENCE ELICITED UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION BUT NOT PLEADED

“In the same vein, evidence elicited under cross-examination but which is at variance with the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded. However if such evidence is pleaded, it is good evidence. See MTN VS CORPORATE COMMUNICATION INVESTMENT LTD (2019) LPELR – 47042(SC)”- Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A

WORDS AND PHRASES- MEANING OF RATIO DECIDENDI

“A ratio decidendi of a case is the principle on which the decision of the court is founded. See AIC LTD VS NNPC (2005) 11NWLR (PT 937) 563, AJIBOLA VS AJADI (20040 14NWLR (PT 982) 14.”- Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- CIRCUMSTANCES A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MAYBE GIVEN

“A declaratory Judgment is a form of Judgment that is granted only in circumstances in which the Court is of the opinion that the party seeking it is fully entitled to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in his favour, regard being had to all the facts of the case placed before it – Obi vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565; Odofin vs. Ayoola (1984) 1 SCNLR 372.” ”-Per SANKEY, J.C.A.

Legalpedia Citation: (2012-02) Legalpedia 07700 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT JOS

Thu Feb 2, 2012

Suit Number: CA/J/443/2019