What is a Liquidated Money Demand?

CASE TITLE: MAJOR CONCEPT LTD. & ANOR v. EZE (2025) LPELR-80563 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST FEBRUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: COMPANY LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on summary judgment procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Division,Appeal, Enugu Division delivered on the 10th day of July, 2020.

The Respondent herein commenced the suit under the summary judgment procedure pursuant to Order 11 of the Enugu State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rherein commencedules, 2006.

The Appellants entered into a contract with the Respondent sometime in November 2010 for the Appellant to supply a Maybach 62 S armoured Mercedes car to the Respondent for a consideration of the sum of Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand United States Dollars (USD 830,000). It was agreed that an initial deposit of Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (USD 700,000) was to be made to the Appellants and the balance of One Hundred and thirty thousand United States dollars (USD 130,000) shall be paid by the Respondent upon delivery. The Respondent transferred the initial sum of USD 700,000 into the Appellants’ nominated account with Bank of America.

The Mercedes Maybach 62 S armoured car was to be delivered within four (4) months, but the Appellants employed ended up changing the amount of outstanding balance payable by the Respondent. That eventually, the Appellants demanded payment of Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (USD 300,000) as final payment before delivery of the vehicle. That the Respondent made the payment of USD 300,000, thereby bringing the total amount remitted to the Appellants to be One Million United States Dollars (USD 1,000,000). The vehicle was never delivered, but the Appellants continued making excuses for not delivering.

The Respondent approached the trial Court by a Summary Judgment Procedure and the Appellants filed a notice of intention to defend. In a ruling delivered on 25/9/2012, the trial Court decided that the Affidavit of the Appellants and the exhibits attached thereto did not disclose any reasonable defence to the Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim and consequently, entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court dismissed same.

Further dissatisfied, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

In determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the issues raised by the Appellant, thus:

1. Whether the lower Court did not breach the Appellants’ right to fair hearing when it affirmed the judgement of the trial Court, and which rendered its decision a nullity?

2. Whether the lower Court was right when it proceeded to reconcile the conflicts in the affidavit of parties notwithstanding that the Respondent’s action was brought under summary judgment procedure instead of transferring the matter to the general cause list?

3. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellants did not disclose a prima facie case in their Notice of Intention to Defend and thereafter affirmed the decision of the trial Court that granted the Respondent the reliefs sought in his motion for summary judgment?

4. Whether the lower Court was right when it exercised Its residual powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act even though same was not expedient in the circumstance and usurped the powers of the trial Court?

5. Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court even though the trial Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondent’s action as it did?

6. Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court which found the 2nd Appellant liable for breach of contractual obligations to the Respondent in the absence of privity of contract between both parties (the 2nd Appellant and the Respondent) assuming the 1st Appellant was liable at all.

7. Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed ththe summary judgemente decision of the High Court that the claim of the Respondent was properly brought under Summary Judgement procedure.

8. Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court despite the manifest evidence on record that the Appellants were not properly served with the Respondent’s Court processes?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

COMPANY LAW- INCORPORATION OF COMPANY: Effect of incorporation or registration of a company
COMPANY LAW- DIRECTORS: Whether a director can incur liability while acting on behalf of the company
CONTRACT- BREACH OF CONTRACT: Venue for commencement of an action for breach of contract
CONTRACT- PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: Doctrine of privity of contract
CONTRACT- ILLEGAL/VOID CONTRACT: Whether a party who has benefitted from a contract can resile from his obligation under such contract on the pretext of illegality
COURT- JURISDICTION: Importance of jurisdiction and effect of proceedings conducted where Court lacks jurisdiction
EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether an appellate Court is in a position as a trial Court to evaluate affidavit and documentary evidence
EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Whether the Court will utilize oral evidence to resolve conflict in affidavit where there is documentary evidence
JURISDICTION- TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: Determinant of territorial jurisdiction
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE: Nature and purpose of summary judgment procedure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE: Whether the statement of claim is one of the processes that the Court will consider in determining a motion for summary judgment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- LIQUIDATED MONEY DEMAND: What is a liquidated money demand
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE: Circumstances under which the Court will transfer a matter initiated under the summary judgment procedure to the general cause list