Whether an Appellate Court Will Award Post-Judgment Interest where the Trial Court Had Declined to Award Same

CASE TITLE:      IGBADOO & ANOR v. KEYSTONE BANK LTD (2023) LPELR-60478(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:      26TH MAY, 2023

JUSTICES:               MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, JCA

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA

IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, JCA

DIVISION: MAKURDI

PRACTICE AREA:           AWARD OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

FACTS:

This is an appeal case against a judgment from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Makurdi Division, delivered on 21/5/2015.

The Appellant (Claimant before the trial Court) alleged that they were employees of the Respondent and were promised upward revisions in their salaries and allowances. However, they were paid less than the agreed amounts during their employment. They approached the trial Court seeking payment of the unpaid balance of their salaries and allowances, along with post-judgment interest of 50% from the date of the judgment and general damages of N10,000,000.00 each.

The Respondent (Defendant before the trial Court) denied that the Appellants were its employees, stating that they were employed by another company and made available to work for the Respondent under agreed terms.

The trial Court granted some of the Appellants’ claims against the Respondent, including damages. The Respondent appealed against the award of damages but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the Respondent paid the judgment sum into the Appellants’ solicitor’s account. However, the Appellants claimed that there was an unpaid balance and interest on the judgment sum, which was the subject of another appeal.

Subsequently, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal against the part of the judgment of the trial Court as to the quantum of General Damages as well as award of post-judgment interest at the rate of 50% per annum on the judgment sum until the entire judgment sum is finally liquidated by the Respondent.

ISSUES:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1. Whether the trial Court has the jurisdiction and/or acted rightly when after holding that the Appellants have proved their case and are entitled to their claims; and … I dare to so hold’, which claims includes N10, 000, 000. 00

general damages for each of the Appellants, totaling the sum of N20,000,000.00, to thereafter reduce the same to N1, 000, 000. 00 each, totaling the sum of N2,000, 000. 00?

2. Whether the trial Court was wrong, after holding that the Appellants ‘have proved their case and are entitled to their claims; and … I dare to so hold’, which claims includes 50% post-judgment interest, not to specifically pronounced that the post-judgment interest of 50% was awarded and/or to include same in the enumeration of the claims the Appellants were held entitled to and awarded?

3. Whether the trial Court was wrong when it failed and neglected to specifically pronounce and/or award the 50% post-judgment interest claimed by the Appellants on the judgment debt?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

The Appellants’ counsel argued that the trial Court erred by not specifically pronouncing on the award of 50% post-judgment interest, which the Appellants had claimed and proven. It was contended that the failure of the trial Court to make a clear ruling on this issue resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Appellants’ counsel emphasized that post-judgment interest need not be specifically pleaded or proven. The counsel cited Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 in support of this position and referred to additional legal authorities to bolster his argument.

Furthermore, the Appellants’ counsel responded to the Respondent’s argument that their appeal had become academic due to their delay in challenging the non-award of post-judgment interest. It was asserted that their appeal was not rendered academic by the payment of the judgment debt and that the issue of post-judgment interest was still live and warranted appeal.

On the other hand, the Respondent’s counsel contended that the Appellants’ delay in challenging the non-award of post-judgment interest amounted to a waiver. It was argued that the Appellants’ motion seeking to enforce the judgment had been dismissed, and therefore, the present appeal was merely academic. The Respondent’s counsel also asserted that the trial Court had exercised its discretion judiciously in not awarding 50% post-judgment interest. It was submitted that the Respondent had already paid the entire judgment sum in full, and the trial Court’s detailed award did not include post-judgment interest. He relied on relevant legal precedents to support their position.

In his response, the Appellants’ counsel countered the argument of waiver and emphasized that the payment of the judgment debt did not preclude them from appealing the non-award of post-judgment interest. He cited several authorities to support the position that time does not run against an applicant seeking post-judgment interest on a judgment debt after the judgment has been delivered.

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was allowed in part.

RATIO: JUDGMENT AND ORDER – AWARD OF INTEREST: Principle guiding the award of post-judgment interest by an appellate Court where the judgment sum has been fully paid

“However, when it comes to award and payment of post-judgment interest on judgment, where the entire judgment sum as awarded has been fully and finally liquidated by the judgment debtor, then such payment of post-judgment interest if granted on appeal, would not, should not, and must not exceed up to the time the entire judgment sum was fully and finally paid by the judgment debtor and not afterward.

In other words, once the entire judgment sum has been paid before an appeal was filed, heard and determined in favor of the judgment creditor, it is my view, and I so firmly hold, that any post-judgment interest payable on the judgment sum already fully paid over to the judgment creditor, must only run up to the date of the payment of the entire judgment sum to the creditor, where in the judgment appealed against there was no award made for the payment of any post-judgment interest and the appellate Court finds otherwise and makes an award for post-judgment interest on the judgment sum.

It does appear to me that Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, formerly Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006, was made to ensure that chronic debtors timorously liquidate judgment debts or otherwise to contend with interest as compensation for holding on to creditors funds. However, there must be apparent on the Record of Appeal, some compelling facts and circumstances to warrant the intervention of an appellate Court to award post-judgment interest where the trial Court had declined to do so. Also, for this Court to invoke and thereby exercise its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, it must be shown that the necessary materials to consider and adjudicate on the matter are available; that the length of time between the disposal of the action at the trial Court and the hearing of the appeal would be enormous and that it is in the interest of justice to eliminate further delay that would arise in the event of remitting the case back to the trial Court for rehearing and the hardship such an order would cause on either or both parties.

See South Trust Bank & Ors V. Pheranzy Gas Limited & Ors (2014) LPELR – 22340 (CA) @ p. 36. See also Oguejiofor V. Ubakason per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. In the instant case, the Appellants had claimed 50% post-judgment interest on the judgment sum until it is finally liquidated by the Respondent. There is the unrefuted as well as unchallenged statement by Respondent’s counsel in the Respondent’s brief at page 3 thereof, that the entire judgment sum has been liquidated and paid in full by the Respondent to the Appellants in July 2018, to which the Appellants’ counsel had in his reply brief, at page 8, paragraph 17.0 thereof, responded that in law payment of the entire judgment sum does not operate as a bar to further appeal on post-judgment interest.

It follows therefore, in my view, and I so firmly hold, that in the event that the Appellants succeed on their issues two and three for determination, the post-judgment interest grantable or awardable shall be from the date of the judgment of the trial Court, which was delivered on 21/5/2015 to the date in July 2018, when the entire judgment sum was fully and finally liquidated by the Respondent and paid over to the Appellants through their counsel nothing more.” Per GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.