Roe Limited V. University Of Nigeria (2018)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.
The Appellant herein, a private Limited Liability Company with its head office at Lagos, Nigeria, was in 1996 awarded a contract by the Respondent to computerize some of its departments. The contract was worth the sum of twelve million, seven hundred and sixty-seven thousand, one hundred and ninety-eight naira, fifty-three kobo (N12, 767,198.53k). The Appellant executed the contract satisfactorily and was issued with a certificate of completion. During the execution of the contract aforesaid, the Respondent made certain payments to the Appellant. At the completion and successful execution of the contract, the Appellant and the Respondent reconciled their accounts and they arrived at an outstanding balance of two million eight hundred and one thousand three hundred and three naira, nine kobo (N2,801,303.09) standing to the credit of the Appellant. This was acknowledged by the respondent through its letter dated 6th October, 1997 to the Appellant. The Respondent refused to pay the balance despite repeated demands by the Appellant. As a result of the
1
Respondent’s refusal to pay the outstanding balance, the Appellant took out a writ of summons at the Enugu State High Court, holding at Nsukka dated 16th of October, 2001 in which he claimed the following reliefs:
“(a) The sum of N2,801,303.09 (Two Million Eight Hundred and One Thousand, Three Hundred-and Three Naira, Nine) being the outstanding balance owed by the defendant for the contract performed for the defendant.
(b) 5 % interest on the judgment debt from the date of judgment until it is fully liquidated.”
This claim was accompanied by a 15 paragraphs affidavit in which the Appellant asked the Court to place the suit on the undefended list because it was convinced that the Respondent had no defence to the suit.
The writ of summons was served on the Appellant. Instead of filing a Notice of Intention to defend the suit, the Appellant filed a notice of preliminary objection in which it challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court in the following words:
“TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant in this case intends to raise preliminary objection to this suit in that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.”
The preliminary objection was heard and in a reserved
2
and considered ruling delivered on the 25th September, 2003, the trial Court upheld the preliminary objection on the ground that the action was statute barred and that the contract was a business between the Appellant and a Federal Government Agency which by Section 251(1)(p),(q),(r) is justiciable only at the Federal High Court since such transaction comes within the term administration or management and control of a Federal Government Agency. The Appellant’s suit was accordingly struck out.
The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful as same was dismissed on the 30th of November, 2006.
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal before this Court, dated 4th January, 2007 and filed on the 5th January, 2007 contains two grounds of appeal which I reproduce hereunder without their particulars thus:
Leave a Reply