CASE TITLE: OLUMIDE v. EJOBE (2025) LPELR-82643(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on civil procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, sitting at Ikeja Judicial Division delivered by HON. JUSTICE I.O. KASALI on the 14th of March, 2007, in Suit ID/1974/2003.
The Respondent (who was the Claimant at the Trial Court) via a Statement of Claim sought the following reliefs against the Appellant (who was the Defendant at the Trial Court):
(i) Supply of the goods or in the alternative payment of N960,000 (Nine hundred and sixty thousand Naira);
(ii) N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as special and general damages for failure to deliver goods on time resulting in loss of profit and goodwill from third parties.
Upon being servedcounterclaimed with the Statement of Claim, the Appellant filed an Amended Statement of Defence cum a counterclaim dated 6th February, 2004; wherein he counter-claimed against the respondent as follows:
(i)Return of the underlisted samples or, in the alternative, payment of the sum of N375,540.00, being the value of the samples hereof:
ITEMS
a. One (1) Covert Camera – N173,000.00
b. One (1) Crowd Control Baton – N25,000.00
c. One (1) Wrist Watch Camera – N82,000.00
d. Two (2) Big notebooks (branded) – N500.00
e. Twenty-One (21) Pieces Branded Biro Pens – N8,000.00
(ii) General Damages
After hearing the parties and adoption of their final written addresses, the Trial Court, partially entered judgment in favour of the Respondent on the ground that the security equipment that was ordered by the Respondent from the Appellant worth N960,000 (Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) was not delivered to the Respondent. The Trial Court equally partially upheld the counterclaim of the Appellant and entered a court judgement for the Appellant on the ground that the sample goods that were given to the Respondent by the Appellant were not returned to the latter.
During trial, the Trial Court refused to admit the stock cards that were sought to be tendered by the Appellant to prove the delivery of the remaining 16 pistol purse carriers to the Respondents and marked the documents as “R2”, “R3” and “A-Famended statement” on the ground that facts of delivery of goods to the Respondent were pleaded in the Amended Statement of Defence but the said facts of delivery of goods did not have any bearing on the recording of stocks in the Amended Statement of Defence.
The trial Court partially granted the claims of the Respondent and the counterclaim of the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:
1. Whether the findings of the lower Court that the Appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof that he has supplied goods ordered by the Respondent is perverse and occasioned a miscarriage of justice?
2. Whether a party who pleaded the fact of an event is also required by law to plead the evidence by which such fact is to be proved?
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.
RATIOS
- ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether a document must be specifically pleaded for it to be admissible in evidence
- APPEAL- BRIEF OF ARGUMENT: Effect of failure of respondent to file brief of argument in an appeal; whether the case of the appellant will automatically succeed
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of a trial Court to evaluate evidence; what an appellant must show to succeed in an appeal against evaluation of evidence by lower Court
- EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Factors guiding the Court in evaluation of evidence
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
