CASE TITLE: GILAT TELECOMS LTD, ISRAEL & ANOR v. G-NET COMM. VENTURES LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62901(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, held at Abuja, delivered on the 10th of November, 2020, by GARBA, J. (as he then was).
The appellants took out an action against the respondents at the trial Court wherein they sought the following reliefs:
a. The sum of $29,040.30 (Twenty Nine Thousand, Forty Nine United States Dollars, Thirty Cents) being the amount owed the Claimants by the Defendants.
b. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 25% per annum or at the rate prevailing bank rate (whichever is higher) from the 1st of February, 2017 till the day judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 21% till the final liquidation of the judgment debt.
c. The cost of this action as assessed by this Honourable Court.
On being served, the respondents joined issues with the appellant on the pleadings and via counter-affidavit to the application for summary judgment, upon which the trial court, on finding that issues were joined, decided on a full trial. At the trial, the sole witness for the appellants was a counsel from the firm of their solicitors, while the 2nd respondent testified for the respondents. After taking the final addresses of the respective counsel, the learned trial judge delivered a considered judgment wherein the evidence of the sole witness of the appellant was found inadmissible and was accordingly expunged with fatal consequences for the appellant’s case, which was found unmeritorious and dismissed.
Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed against the same.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellants in the determination of the appeal, thus:
i. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that counsel is not competent to give evidence in a case he/she appears for a party as counsel.
ii. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that the evidence of the sole witness of the Appellants who is a counsel in the matter, amounts to hearsay evidence and is not within the purview of the exception to hearsay evidence, and therefore inadmissible in law.
iii. Whether the trial Court was right to have held that there was no valid contract or agreement between the Appellants and Respondents.
iv. Whether the lower Court was right to have rejected the documents marked exhibits A-E tendered through CW1 (which was not objected to in the course of trial) on the grounds that the documents tendered as exhibits B, C, D and E were aimed at proving their content and that exhibits A and C (invoice) must be signed before they can be acted on by the Court.
v. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the lower Court dismissed the Appellants’ claims despite sufficient and uncontroverted evidence placed before the Court.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- EVIDENCE- EVIDENCE OF WITNESS(ES)- Effect when the evidence of a witness loses credibility
- EVIDENCE- HEARSAY EVIDENCE- Instance when evidence of a witness will be regarded as hearsay evidence
- EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- Effect of an unsigned document
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF- Burden and standard of proof in civil cases; whether it shifts
- EVIDENCE- HEARSAY EVIDENCE- Whether hearsay evidence is admissible; meaning and nature of an hearsay evidence
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER- APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL- Whether a counsel can give evidence in the same case that he is acting as a counsel
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER- RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT- Whether a legal practitioner can act as counsel and witness in the same case
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
