- K.T.P. Ltd. vs. Gloede & Hoff (Nig.) Ltd
- ₦ 200
K.T.P. Ltd. vs. Gloede & Hoff (Nig.) Ltd
KANO TEXTILE PRINTERS LTD.
GLOEDE AND HOFF (NIG.) LTD.
SUPREME COURT OF
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JSC (
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI JSC
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JSC
DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN JSC
27TH MAY, 2005
APPEAL - Ground of
appeal - Ground of law, fact and mixed law and fact - How identified
APPEAL - Ground of
appeal and issues for determination - Need for to derive from judgment appealed
APPEAL - Leave to appeal - Ground requiring
leave of court to file - Where filed without leave - Effect
Whether the learned trial Judge was right when after the
proceeding of 12/3/97 he adjourned the matter for judgment when the defendant
had not cross-examined the plaintiffâ€™s witness or presented its own case. Or in
the alternative, whether from the circumstances of the case the defendant has
been afforded a fair hearing.
respondent as plaintiff sued the appellant in the Kano State
High Court claiming the sum of US$ 341,759.79 (three hundred
and forty All FWLR K.T.P. Ltd. vs. Gloede
& Hoff (Nig.) Ltd. 255 one
thousand, seven hundred and fifty-nine United States dollars, seventynine
cents) being the balance of the price of goods supplied to the defendant. It
also claimed in the alternative against the defendant as drawer of several
bills of exchange, for the balance of the total sum due in the amount of US$
341,759.79 payable to the plaintiff
which bills were duly presented for payment and dishonoured to the
acknowledgment of the defendant. After issues were joined and the matter fixed
for hearing, it suffered several adjournments at the instance of the defendant.
On 30th October, 1996, with both counsel present, the matter was adjourned for
hearing, but the hearing did not hold that day. On the next adjourned date, the
defendant and his counsel were absent but a letter requesting for a further
adjournment was sent to the court. On the day the matter was adjourned to, the
defendant and his counsel were yet absent in court and after the plaintiff gave
evidence, the court reserved judgment for a further date and issued new hearing
notices to the defendant. Judgment was eventually entered for the plaintiff.
The defendant was dissatisfied and
appealed to the Court of Appeal, basing the appeal on several grounds including
lack of fair hearing. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Still
dissatisfied, the defendant now appellant further appealed to the Supreme
Court. In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the competence
or otherwise of the grounds of appeal and issues distilled therefrom.