CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC APPELLANTS

---

RAVIH ABDUL &. CO. LIMITED RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent applied to the Defendant/Appellant for an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the total sum £5,240.36 in favour of Vertika International Ltd, Cheshire UK. A Letter of credit No. SF/93/60437 was opened by the Appellant on the request of the Respondent, which was to expire on the 12th August, 1993, and subsequently, at the request of the Respondent, the expiry was extended to the 31st of October, 1993. The original shipping document of the goods supplied by the beneficiary was delivered by the Respondent to the Appellant who was to forward same to the correspondent bank, Barclays Bank UK for payment to the beneficiary. The Appellant acknowledged the receipt of the shipping documents, stamped and forwarded same to the corresponding bank and it gave a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the shipping document to the Respondent to clear the goods supplied on the condition that the Appellant will forward the original shipping documents as agreed to the corresponding bank (Barclays Bank, UK) for payment to the beneficiary. The Appellant is alleged to have traded with the Respondent’s foreign exchange, failed or refused to forward the shipping documents to the corresponding bank to enable it pay the value of the Letter of Credit to the beneficiary as a result of which no payment was made to the beneficiary (Vertika International Ltd) during the lifetime of the letter of credit and thereafter. The trial court delivered judgment in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and granted all the reliefs sought. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment, has filed an appeal before this court alleging that the lower Court erred in law when it held that the Appellant was in breach of the letter of credit without giving effect to Exhibits D2, D2A, and D2B all which clearly established that payment was made in respect of the only letter of credit SF/93/60437 opened in the transaction.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Appellant was in breach of the terms o the Letter of Credit No. SF/93/60437 having regard to Exhibits D2, D2A, and D3B to entitle the Respondent to the relief sought for damages for breach.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF- NATURE OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

---

“The law is that the burden of proof is on the party who would lose if no evidence were adduced. Generally in civil proceedings the burden of proof though said not to be static, it is on the vulnerable party to lead credible evidence in proof to the contrary. See Adegoke vs Adibi (Supra), Onwuama vs Ezeokoli (Supra), Oyovbiare vs Omamurhonu (Supra) And Ike vs Ugboaja (Supra). See also Onobruchere vs Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799; Ojomo vs Ijeh (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 216; Abiodun vs Adehin (1962) 2 SCNLR 305; Reynolds Construction Co. Ltd. vs Okwejiminor (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt.735) 87.”

---

TECHNICALITIES- ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO TECHNICALITIES

---

“The above is informed by seemingly settled position that it is no longer fashionable to decide cases solely on technicalities as the Courts have deliberately shifted away from narrow technical approach in favour substantial justice. See Makeri Smelting Co. Ltd. Vs. Access Bank (Nig.) Plc (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 447 at 476-477. The attitude of the courts now is that cases should always be decided, wherever possible on merit to the extent that blunders, like in the instant appeal where typographical errors of stating letter of credit “No. SF/95/60437” is n issue against the obvious fact and evidence that, in reality, the parties are aware that their letter of credit had reference Number SF/93/60437. This is one instance where technicalities must, and should give way to substantial justice. See also Ajakaiye vs Idehia (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.364) 504, Artra Ind. Ltd vs Nbci (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.483) 574, Dakat vs. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt.531) 46, Benson vs Nigeria Agip Co. Ltd (1982) 5 S.C 1. Adekeye vs Akin-Olugbade (1987) 3 NWLR Pt.60, at 214.”

---

GROUND OF APPEAL- GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN DETERMINING WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL IS OF LAW, FACT OR MIXED LAW AND FACT

---

“The position calls for the determination of whether or not the said grounds 2, 3 and 4 are of law or mixed law and fact or both and in doing this a recourse to the guiding principles well enunciated by this court shall be done. Specifically in the case of Nwadike v Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718 at 744-745 the Supreme Court stated thus:
It is an error in law if the adjudicating tribunal took into account some wrong criteria in reaching its conclusion or applied some wrong standard of proof or, if although applying the correct criteria, it gave wrong weight to one or more of the relevant factors; See O’ kelly v Trusthouse Forte Plc (1983) 3 All E.R. 456 at P.468.
Several issues that can be raised on legal interpretation of deeds, documents, terms of art, words or phrases, and inference drawn there from are grounds of law; See Ogbechie v Onochie (supra) at Pp. 419492.
where a ground deals merely with a matter of inference, even if it be an inference of fact, a ground framed on it is a ground of law; provided it is limited to admitted or proved and accepted facts; See Edwards v Bairstow (supra) P. 55; H. L. For, for many years, it has been recognized that inferences to be drawn from a set of proved or undisputed facts, as distinct from primary facts, are matters upon which an appellate court is as competent as the court of trial; See Benmax v Austin Motor Co. LTD. (1955) 1 ALL E. R. 326 at P. 327.
Where a tribunal states the law on a point wrongly, it commits an error in law.
Where the complaint is, that there was no evidence or no admissible evidence upon which a finding or decision was based. This is regarded as a ground of law, on the premises that in a jury trial there would have been no evidence to go to the jury.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

Evidence Act, 2011

Supreme Court Rules 2014 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---