LATISCO MOTOR VS NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

CORAM

PARTIES

LATISCO MOTORALHAJI ABDULLATEEF FALEKULO APPELLANTS

NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (LIQUIDATOR OF PREMIER COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.) RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Kaduna where the court entered judgment for the Plaintiff (now Respondent) as per the writ of summons, for the sum of N3,852,564.50 (three Millions, Eight Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Four Nair Fifty Kobo), being outstanding/unpaid banking facility and interest granted to the 1st defendant by the Premier Commercial Bank Ltd (in liquidation) as at 30th August, 2000, interest on the said sum of N3,852,564.50 at the rates of 21% and 10% until judgment is delivered and from the date of the judgment until liquidation respectively. The suit had earlier been placed on the Undefended List procedure for hearing and determination and when it came up for hearing, the Defendants (Appellants herein) were absent, failed and neglected to file their Notice of Defence as required and affidavit prescribed by Order 24 Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of Court. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether it was proper for the learned trial judge to have given judgment against the Appellants when there was no sufficient evidence or material placed before the court by the Respondent that shows (sic) Appellants(sic) indebtedness to the Respondent andWhether having regards to the fact of this case the Respondent’s action was statues (sic) barred

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURT PROCESS-WHAT A TRIAL COURT MUST RELY ON TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTY HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE COURT PROCESS

“The trial Court must rely on the affidavit of service filed by the Bailiff of the Court to determine whether or not a defendant or any party has been served with the Court process” PER MBABA JCA

UNDEFENDED LIST-ACTION FOR CLAIM OF DEBT-OPTION AVAILABLE TO A TRIAL JUDGE WHERE A DEFENDANT FAILS TO FILE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEFEND AND AN AFFIDAVIT IN AN ACTION FOR CLAIM OF DEBT

“In an action for claim of debt, placed on the undefended list, where the Defendant, fails to file a notice of intention to defend and an affidavit therefore, disclosing a defence on the merit, the trial judge, on the date fixed for hearing, has no other option than to enter judgment for the plaintiff, as per the writ, the understanding being that the Defendant has no defence to the claim of debt” PER MBABA JCA

GROUND OF APPEAL-EFFECT OF COMBINING A DEFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL WITH A VALID GROUND OF APPEAL

“Combining a defective ground of appeal with a valid one to distill an issue is fatal, as the defective ground corrupts the valid one and infirms the entire argument raised on the issue”. PER MBABA JCA

DOCUMENT-FORM OF A DOCUMENT EXHIBITED IN AN AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE

“A document exhibited in an affidavit evidence must necessarily be a photocopy of an original document, that is, a secondary evidence” PER MBABA JCA

CASES CITED

Afribank Plc Vs. Yelwa [2011] 12 NWLR [Pt.1261] 287Bereyin Vs. Ebebo [1989] 1 NWLR [Pt. 97] 372 At 380Chanchangi Airline Nig. Ltd. Vs. African Petroleum Plc; Ca/K/14/2012Fela Danboyi Vs. Dali Sa’adu [2011] 15 NWLR [Pt. 1269] 1 At 16-17;Idaayor Vs. Tigidam [1995] 2 NWLR [Pt. 377] 359 At 378.Ilorin East Local Govt Vs. Alasinrin & Anr.  [2012] All FWLR Pt. 645)Obosi Vs. Nipost (2013) LPELR – 21397 (CA)Uba Plc Vs. Jargaba [2007] 11 NWLR [Pt. 1045] 247University Of Benin Vs. Kraus Thampson Org. Ltd. Vs Celtel Nig. Ltd. (Trading As Zain) [2013] LPELR -20758Udeagba Vs. Nwogwugwu [2013] LPELR 21819 Ca,Zaria Local Govt. Council & Anor Vs. Alh. Salihu Ali Kwastan: Ca/K/151/2009

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) RulesFailed Banks Decree, 1994.Kaduna State Limitation Edict 1987, Cap 89 Laws of Kaduna State

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT