Civil Design Construction Nig. Ltd. V. Scoa Nigeria Limited (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal holden at Lagos in appeal No. CA/L/243/93 delivered on the 9th day of February, 2001 in which the court held as follows:

“1. The plaintiff claim in respect of Rig. No. LA 2632 WD succeeds and the plaintiff is awarded:

(a) The sum of N3,300.000.00 as the market value of the Rig at the date of judgment of the lower court.

(b) N560,000.00 as damages for loss of income on the Rig for 260 days at the rate of N2,000.00 per day.

2. The claims of the plaintiff on rig No. LA 8509 WD are refused as the plaintiff did not show that a Rig is a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 1 of the Hire Purchase Act, Cap. 169.
3. The award of the sum of N319,806.00 on the scrappers are affirmed; and this court sees no reason to award more than that amount.
4. On the counter claim by the defendant, judgment is given in favour of the defendant for the sum of N108,324.16 the breakdown of which is as follows:-

(a) N 100,000.00 being the unpaid balance of the purchase price due on the rig No. LA 8509 WD.

(b) N8,324.16 being cost of repairs and spare parts on the plaintiff’s rig.”

The facts of the case, as can be gathered from the very lengthy and unnecessarily tedious pleadings of the parties include the following:

The plaintiff who is also the appellant before this court, at first bought one Ingersoll Cyclone Water Well rig with registration No.LA 2632 WD from the respondent under a Hire Purchase Agreement for the sum of N431,842.00 which the appellant eventually fully paid for thus becoming the owner thereof.

The second transaction between the parties involves a second rig with registration No. LA 8509 WD which the appellant also bought under a Hire Purchase Agreement for the sum of N514,482.00 in respect of which the appellant paid the sum of N100,000.00 being two installments of N50,000.00 each remaining unpaid or outstanding at the time of the dispute between the parties. The facts of the above two transactions are not disputed by the parties.

There is finally, a third transaction involving scrappers, the facts in relation to which are violently disputed by the parties. It is the appellant’s case that on 26/1/84 and 10/2/84 respectively, it bought a road scrapper each on those dates for the sum of N 159,903.00 and fully paid cash for both. The appellant further contends that the parties later agreed that the sums paid on the two scrappers be merged and credited to the appellant on account of the purchase by the appellant on hire purchase terms of one new rig and ‘two service rigs’, that the respondent later expressed its inability to implement the said agreement which made the appellant to instruct the respondent to sell the scrappers and make a refund to it of the purchase price for both scrappers.

On the other hand, the respondent contends that each scrapper was sold for N177,162.00 and that the sum of N159,903.00 paid by the appellant on each scrapper, was a deposit against the said purchase price and that the appellant owed the balance of N34,518.00 on both scrappers. It is the further contention of the respondent that appellant bought two other scrappers for which no deposit was made but rather, that the appellant allegedly deposited its rig No. LA 2632 WD as security against the payment due on the said scrappers. The respondent claimed to have delivered the four scrappers to Sokoto Agricultural Development Project (SADP) on behalf of the appellant on an alleged instruction of the appellant which the appellant denied.

It is in these circumstances that the appellant instituted suit No. LD/481/85 in the High Court of Lagos State, holden at Ikeja claiming the following reliefs as per the 3rd amended statement of claim:

“1. DECLARATION that the seizure of the plaintiff’s rigs Nos. LA 2632 WD and LA 8509 WD was wrongful.