BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Jegede v. Oluwasesan
  • 671
  • 2013-04-08
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Jegede v. Oluwasesan

MR. V. O. OLA JEGEDE

( Director of Finance and Administration Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ado-Ekiti)

MR. B. A. FAMOYEGUN

( The Clerk, Ekiti State House of  Assembly )

MR. D. T. IBIKUNLE

( Accountant-General, Ekiti State )

V

ATOKI OLUWASESAN

COURT OF APPEAL

( ADO-EKITI DIVISION )

UWANI MUSA ABBA-AJI JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JCA

HARUNA M. TSAMMANI JCA

CA/AE/80/2010

WEDNESDAY, 13 JULY 2011

APPEAL - Finding of trial court - When perverse - Attitude of appellate court to and judgment based on misconception of case

EVIDENCE - Evaluation of - What entails

EVIDENCE - Evaluation of and ascription of probative value thereto Primary duty of trial court to undertake - Proper approach of appellate court thereto

EVIDENCE - Person interested - Statement made by when proceedings are pending or anticipated - Inadmissibility of - Who qualifies as - Employee - Document made by in the course of his official duty - Exclusion of therefrom - Evidence Act, section 91(3) considered

STATUTE - Evidence Act, section 91(3) - Person interested - Statement made by when proceedings are pending or anticipated Inadmissibility of - Who qualifies as - Employee - Document made by in the course of his official duty - Exclusion of therefrom

Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court in the light of exhibit A was right in holding that the appointment of the respondent was not made to a particular named person but to any incumbent of the office of the Deputy Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly.
  2. Whether the trial court was right in refusing to admit the letter which later purportedly stopped the salary of the respondent and which letter was issued well after the respondent has instituted the action on 4 May 2009.
  3. Whether the trial court in the light of the evidence adduced was right in granting the reliefs of the respondent on preponderance of evidence.

Facts:

The plaintiff a personal assistant attached to the Deputy Speaker of Ekiti State House of Assembly (who later resigned ) commenced an action in the High Court of Ekiti State claiming a declaratory relief that by the letter of his appointment, he was appointed to the office of the Deputy Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly, orders directing the defendants to pay his salary for the month of March 2009, bonuses, subsequent salaries and allowances. In the alternative, order directing the defendants to pay his remaining entitlement in lump sum. The defendants counterclaimed that; the plaintiff’s appointment ceased on 1 August 2007, the plaintiff is not entitled to collect the money received by him being money collected illegally as salaries and impress and orders that he should refund the money and an order for pre and post judgment interest on the sum. The trial court granted plaintiff’s claims and dismissed the counterclaim. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In determination of the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the following statute:

Evidence Act, Cap. 112, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, section 91(3):

91(3)  “Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute

as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.”