S.O. AKINNOLA VS D.A. FASEUN & ORS

CORAM

ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)

BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

S.O. AKINNOLA APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in which the court confirmed the judgment of the High Court and held that in order to be effective, an acknowledgment of a debt by a borrower must, under Section 30 of the Money-lenders Law, (Cap. 78) of the Western State of Nigeria, state the amount due and give an undertaking by the debtor to pay that amount and that the plaintiff/appellants claim must be dismissed for failure to prove that both conditions had been met in this case.

HELD

The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Court Of Appeal was set aside.

ISSUES

The appellate court erred in law in not holding that Exhibit H constituted an acknowledgment of the debt within Section 30 of the Money – lenders Law particularly in view of the finding of fact of the learned trial Judge.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

POSITION WHERE JUDGE RAISES FRESH POINT

It should be emphasized that it is as desirable that counsel should always be heard on any ground of appeal filed by them and which they desired to argue, as that an appeal judge desiring to raise a point on his own should also give a like opportunity for counsel to be heard.

RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT DUE FROM DEBTOR

<br< p=””></br<>

EFFECT OF SETTING A MINSTERIAL OFFICER IN MOTION

The law of Nigeria is that those who set a ministerial rather than a judicial officer in motion in this way are as liable for the wrongful seizure of anothers property as if they had done it themselves