CORAM

---

BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

WADIH CHIDIAK

APPELLANTS 

---

 A.K.I. LAGUDA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

 PARTNERSHIPP-DISSOLUTION-LIABILITY

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

 The appellant appealed against the judgement and ruling of the trial court seeking to set aside the orders of the trial court directing him to hand over the partnership business to the respondent.

 

---

HELD

---

 The Court held that that the partners shall bear the bar and restaurant deficit equally, the sum of £145-6s-4d being debited to the appellant instead of the sum of £290-12s-9d as ordered by the trial Judge and that the fifth order made by the trial Judge in his ruling of the 11th August,1962, shall be set aside

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. whether the trial Judge erred in holding that during the taking of the account the present appellant should be debited with the maximum amount realized from exhibits ‘E 2’, T1 and T2 in view of the appellant’s failure to produce a missing book required for accounting purposes.

2. Whether the appellant should not be debited with the full sum of £290-12s- 9d shown at folio 1 of the balance sheet under the heading “Bar and restaurant deficit”; that the appellant should be made to bear half of this loss only.

3. whether the appellant having supplied seventy-five chairs to the partnership business at a cost of £375 to himself, the partnership should be made to bear about a half of the cost price of same i.e., about £180.

4. Whether the fifth order made by the trial Judge on the 11th August, 1962 was unfair to the appellant as it had the effect of keeping the appellant waiting indefinitely for the sum found due and owing to him on the taking of the account.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ON WHEN A MISDIRECTION OCCURS

---

‘Misdirection therefore occurs when the issues of fact, the case for the plaintiff or for the defence, or the law applicable to the issues raised are not fairly submitted for the consideration of the Jury. Where, however, the Judge sits without a Jury, he misdirects himself if he misconceives the issues, or summarises the evidence inadequately or incorrectly or makes a mistake of law, but provided there is some evidence to justify a finding it cannot properly be described as a misdirection. It is of course desirable, and we consider that it should be the practice that the particular findings to which objection is to be taken at the hearing of an appeal should be specified in the grounds of appeal, possibly under the ground of appeal alleging that the judgment was against the weight of evidence.’- TAYLOR, J.S.C

 

---

CASES CITED

---

 1. Adeniji v. Disu (1958) 3 FSC 104

2. Bray v. Ford [1896] A.C. 44 at 49

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT