Martchem Industries Nigeria Ltd. V.m.f. Kent West Africa Ltd. (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

G.A.OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The appellant was the plaintiff at the Kano High Court where it claimed against the respondent, as the defendant, for the following reliefs:

(a) An immediate delivery of one Doz. 50KVA generator which is the most

important item purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.

(b) Receipt of payment to the defendant by the plaintiff the sum of N556,500.00

plus the documents of purchase of the two (2) generators and other goods purchased

by the plaintiff from the defendant

(c) The sum of N8,000.00 per day as rent due and payable to the

plaintiff by the defendant from 9th September, 1994 to the date of

delivery of the generator to the plaintiff or judgment in this suit.”

The plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim dated 4th November, 1996. The defendant had filed a statement of defense dated 28th November, 1994. The case was heard by Ubbaonu, J. At the hearing, the plaintiff called four witnesses in support of its case. The defendant, although granted several adjournments to enable it put across its defence, did not call any evidence. On 3/12/97, the trial Judge granted the claims of the plaintiff in his judgment.

The defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court. It brought an appeal against it before the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division (hereinafter referred to as “the court below”). On 15th December, 1999, the court below in its unanimous judgment allowed the defendant’s appeal. The judgment of the trial court was set aside and plaintiff’s claims dismissed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below. It has brought this appeal against it before this court. In the appellant’s brief filed for the plaintiff, the issues for determination in this appeal were identified as the following:

“1. Whether or not the lower court was right in setting aside the judgment of the court of first instance in favour of the appellant in an uncontested action when the appellant had proved its entitlement to judgment by credible evidence.

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in re-evaluation of the appellant’s evidence which was neither contradicted nor controverted at the trial and in ascribing probative values to the averments in the statement of defence not proved by any evidence.”

The respondent formulated three issues for determination, namely: