BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Garba v. Sheda International (Nig.) Ltd
  • 113
  • 2002-07-29
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Garba v. Sheda International (Nig.) Ltd

ALHAJI (DR.) BAWA GARBA

A.B.G. COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

V

SHEDA INTERNATIONAL (NIG.) LTD.

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA ( Presided )

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

VICTOR ALMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA

CA/K/93/2000

WEDNESDAY, 27TH JUNE, 2001

BANKING AND FINANCE - Interest -Award of on unproved claim - Whether justified

BANKING AND FINANCE - Investment attracts profit, not interest - Reason therefor

BANKING AND FINANCE - Money placed on deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to investment

BANKING AND FINANCE - Ordinary debt - Interest thereon - When recoverable at common law

BANKING AND FINANCE - Shares - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an investment - When transforms to an investment

COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Investment attracts profit, not interest -  Reason therefor

COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Money placed on deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to investment

COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an investment - When transforms to an investment

 COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - Ordinary debt - Interest thereon - When recoverable at common law

COMPANY LAW - Investment attracts profit, not interest - Reason therefor

COMPANY LAW - Joint venture company - Money invested in a joint venture by a promoter or investor in a duly registered company - Withdrawal or pay back of the money so invested to such investor or promoter Effect of on the joint venture

COMPANY LAW - Money placed on deposit - Whether attracts interest prior to investment

COMPANY LAW - Promoter - Promise to pay promoter by the company for services rendered - Whether binding - Whether a past consideration

COMPANY LAW - Promoter - Services rendered before the promotion of a company by promoter - Whether has right against the company for payment of services so rendered

COMPANY LAW - Promoter of a company - Fiduciary position of - Whether promoter an agent or trustee of a company

COMPANY LAW - Promoter of a company - Who is

COMPANY LAW - Shares - Money placed on deposit to purchase shares - Whether an investment - When transforms to an investment

COURT - Interest - Award of on unproved claim - Whether justified

COURT - Simple debt or liquidated money demand - Claim for under Order 22 , rule 1 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 -  Whether High Court has jurisdiction thereon

EVIDENCE - Affidavit  - Conflict therein - Whether can be resolved only by calling oral evidence - Relevance of authentic documentary evidence which supports one of the affidavits in conflict with another

EVIDENCE - Affidavit evidence - Conflict therein - Duty of court to call oral evidence

JURISDICTION - As basis on which any court of law tries a case Importance of as life-line of all trials

JURISDICTION - Simple debt or liquidated money demand - Claim for under Order 22, rule 1 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 -  Whether High Court has jurisdiction thereon

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interest - Award of on unproved claim Whether justified

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Simple debt or liquidated money demand -  Claim for under Order 22, rule 1 of the Kaduna State High Court ( Civil Procedure ) Rules, 1987 - Whether High Court has jurisdiction thereon

Issues:

1.            Whether having regard to the claims of the respondent, the trial court has jurisdiction to hear this case.

2.            Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent’s claim could be taken as a debt or liquidated money demand within the meaning and contemplation of Order 22, rule 1 of the High Court of Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987.

3.            Whether the trial court was right when it dismissed the appellant’s case having regard to its failure to call or order for oral evidence to resolve the glaring conflicts in the affidavit evidence before it.

4.            Whether the lower court was right in awarding the respondent’s claim on interest.

Facts:

By an agreement in 1993, the appellants and the respondent agreed to form a joint venture to be known as Jos Cable Satellite Limited. Pursuant to that agreement in Kaduna, the respondent paid the sum of $40,000.00 and £35,000.00 respectively to the appellants as the respondent’s contributions or shares in the proposed joint venture which ultimately resulted in the incorporation of the company, Jos Cable Satellite Limited. Not long after the incorporation of the company, the respondent became dissatisfied with the venture and therefore decided to withdraw from it by a letter dated 14/3/ 95  addressed to the 1st appellant asking for the repayment of the sums paid towards the venture together with interest. In their reply dated 4/10/95, the appellants agreed to the withdrawal of the respondent from the joint venture and also agreed to refund the sums of $40,000.00 and £35,000.00 respectively paid by the respondent towards the joint venture but did not say anything on interest on the amount. Pursuant to their agreeing to pay back the sums invested, the appellants had between 26/9/96 and 8/9/97, paid a total sum of $40,000.00 and £20,000.00 to the respondent thereby leaving a balance of £15,000.00. It was when this balance could not be paid by the appellants in spite of undertaking to do so, that the respondent instituted this action to recover the balance of £15,000.00 together with 21% interest on the total amount paid to the appellants. The lower court granted the reliefs sought by the respondent with 10% interest under the undefended list of that court, hence the present appeal.