CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

SPRING CAPITAL MARKETS PLC            APPELLANTS

---

SUNDAY IKARA   RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In the course of the Respondent’s job as a dispatch rider engaged by the Appellant, he was involved in an accident with another motor cycle wherein he sustained grievous injury and suffered from paralysis with broken limbs and severe bruises all over his body. It was the Respondent’s case that rather than compensating him, the Appellant terminated his appointment vide a letter. Consequently, the Respondent instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the termination of the his employment via a letter is null and void, the sum of Twenty Million Naira being compensation for the permanent incapacitation of the Respondent, damages for wrongful termination of employment and cost of the action. The Appellant in his Statement of Defence denied all the allegations and contended that the Respondent resumed work with him before he was disengaged with others as a result of financial problems and consequently paid the disengaged staff 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. In the course of the parties’ negotiation for out of court settlement, the Appellant wrote two letters (both marked “without prejudice”) to the Respondent offering a particular sum of money to the Respondent requesting him to communicate to it, his acceptance as full and final settlement of the sum due to him by the Appellant. The Respondent on this basis filed a Motion on Notice for an order entering final judgment in the sum of N423,985.99 (Four Hundred and Twenty Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Five Naira Ninety Nine Kobo) only being the admitted sum owed and 21% interest till judgment and final liquidation of the said sum. The motion was moved and one month three days after argument of the said motion, the Appellant filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the application. The trial judge declared the Appellant’s counter affidavit incompetent having been filed without leave and same was struck out. The court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent in the said sum hence this appeal at the instance of the Appellant.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not Exhibit A and A1 is an admission considering the circumstances of this case.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – A DOCUMENT DECLARED INADMISSIBLE CANNOT BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE FOR ANY PURPOSE

---

“Where the law declares a document inadmissible, the document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose even when there was no objection to its admissibility or even where the parties consent to it. Etim Vs. Ekpe (1983) 1 SCNLR 120; Alao Vs Akano (2005) 4 S.C. 25 @ 32.” PER C. E. IYIZOB, J.C.A

---

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – CORRESPONDENCES MADE TO SETTLE A DISPUTE AMOUNTS TO INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

---

“It is trite that such correspondence made during a bona fide attempt to settle a dispute is in law inadmissible in evidence. In Ashibuogwu V A.G. Bendel State & Anor (1988) LPELR-SC 25/86, the SC held:
“A statement made in the course of a negotiation of the compensation or the offer of such a compensation would, in my view, be analogous to a statement made “without prejudice” during a negotiation. The law has always taken the view that parties should speak freely in attempting a settlement of their disputes. That freedom of discussion will be seriously prejudiced if any offer or admission made in the process of the negotiation could be given in evidence and be used to support a party’s case in court afterwards, should the negotiation break down. Where such negotiations are made by written communication they are usually marked “without prejudice” and are inadmissible against the parties in the suit————“
In Chief Gani Fawehinmi Vs. NBA (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 358 @ 622 and 633.The Supreme Court observed:
“Happily we are not without precedent to guide us in the matter. As regards this point Phipson on Evidence, 12th Edition, page 295, paragraph 679, says “Offers of compromise made expressly or impliedly “without prejudice” cannot be given in evidence against a party as admissions, the law on grounds of public policy protecting negotiations bona fide entered into for the settlement of disputes. The rationale of the doctrine is a complex of factors. The policy of the law is to encourage settlements; it is thought to be “unfair” that advantage should be taken of the willingness of one party to negotiate; and some cases discover an express or implied contract between the parties that without prejudice communications should not be disclosed.”
See also Nwadike & Ors V Ibekwe & Ors (1987) 112 SC 14; Obeya V. F.B.N. PLC LPELR 4666.”PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999

Evidence Act 2011

High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT