BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Mat Holdings Ltd. vs. U.B.A. Plc
  • 183
  • 2003-12-01
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Mat Holdings Ltd. vs. U.B.A. Plc

MAT HOLDINGS LIMITED

MOHAMMED A. TUDUNWADA

V

UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC

COURT OF APPEAL

( KADUNA DIVISION )

ISA AYO SALAMI, JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JCA

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA

CA/K/288/2000

 MONDAY, 3RD JUNE, 2002

APPEAL - Issue for determination - Argument canvassed on issues not based on ground of appeal - Attitude of court thereto

ESTOPPEL - Estoppel by conduct - Object of - Which party can raise

ESTOPPEL -When presumed

EVIDENCE - Uncontroverted evidence -Attitude of court thereto

LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Counsel seeking adjournment in absentia -Duty on

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Adjournment - Counsel seeking adjournment in absentia -Duty on

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Defendant’s affidavit - What must show to qualify as a good defence

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list - General denial-Whether constitutes a good defence

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list - Triable defence - What constitutes

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Undefended list action - Purport of Object of

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -Undefended list procedure - Suit filed thereunder - Duty of court thereto

STATUTE - Evidence Act, section 151 - Provision for estoppel thereunder -

When presumed

WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Triable issue’ - Meaning of

Issue:

Whether the appellants have disclosed a good and triable defence or issue to warrant being let to defend the suit.

Facts

Respondent as plaintiff filed an action against the defendants now appellants claiming the sum of N511,401.68 and interest thereon. The plaintiff/respondent brought the suit under the undefended list alleging that the defendant has no defence to the action. The defendants/appellants promptly responded to the writ by filing a notice of their intention to defend the action. On 30th Sept., 1996, neither the defendants nor their counsel was in court and there was no explanation for their absence.

The trial Judge considered the suit of the plaintiff on the strength of the plaintiff’s affidavit in the face of no defence or appearance for the defendant and gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants/appellants being dissatisfied brought this appeal urging the Court of Appeal to determine whether they have disclosed a good and triable defence or issue to warrant being let to defend the suit.