Antedating bill lading

2 that after laying the cables to pumps island that I should leave the connection to pumps pending when defendants connected the pumps on the islands, they would connect it themselves. And it cannot be doubted that the above evidence standing by itself sufficiently proved and explained the point, subject, of course to what the respondent had to offer in contradiction. The court below also accepted respondent's evidence that the appellant performed the job poorly. The bare pleading in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim that the plaintiff claims interest is not enough. Pleading has long ceased to be technical in form: facts are only required to be stated in a summary and concise manner in order to reflect a party's case. Under cross-examination he testified as follows: I sent a total bill of 6,000.00. because there was an agreement after I received Exh. Respondent's Manager who awarded the contract and made Exhs. The only defence witness, Peter Adenola, who testified as D. Direct evidence cannot be compared with hearsay and speculative guesswork. that on the state of the facts before the court, the evidence called by the appellants went one way. It was therefore, clearly established that what the appellant was asked to do was to lay the under-ground cables; that the respondents would connect electricity by themselves, when available. It was pleaded in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim as follows: The plaintiff completed the work on schedule and was inspected and approved by the defendant who later signified its acceptance when the plaintiff forwarded his bills Nos. "3" and "3A." It has not been disputed that what appears as the Manager's signatures on Exhs. On the above facts, the remark of the learned trial Judge that it was D. 1 who, for reasons best known to him, kicked up the whole controversy in this case be-comes eminently palpable. There can only be a claim for interest, not a judgment debt.This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the reversal by the court of appeal Kaduna Division of the judgement given in favour by L. 1713 all dated 31st October, 1977 and by letter Reference No WJ/ ADM 069/7/78 awarded the work of laying of underground cables for its petrol pumping stations in the following towns Mangu (5 pumps) Barkin Ladi (5 pumps) Nassarawa, (5 pumps) Bassa (5 pumps) Pankshin (5 pumps)Wase and Kanam (5 pump) The plaintiff in accordance with the Local Purchase order and the letter Reference No. (2) If the answer to questions in the affirmative then the further question is whether an employer can make a contractor to contract to perform what amounts to illegality and what is the effect of that aspect of the contract that is tainted with illegality. The allegations first emerged in the evidence of D. Although an appellate court may interfere in a limited number of cases, yet, where the reason for such interference turns out to be wrong or unfounded, this court has a duty to set it aside. In my view, as the power to award interest under the rule is one which derives from the rule itself, it is not obligatory that interest there under must be claimed on the writ or pleaded in the statement of claim. Judicial and judicious exercise of discretion is acceptable in law, an arbitrary exercise of it is not.

It is, however, noted, as pointed out by the Court of Appeal, rightly in my view, that the parties did not rely on Exh. "1" and "l A" The appellant's reasoning is this: If the expression 'flame proof electrification" includes the requirement that the appellant must supply electricity, even though the evidence shows that there were not yet electricity supplies at the different locations of the contract - at Bassa, Pankshin, Langtang, Wase, Mangu, Barakin Ladi and Nassarawa - then the contract is illegal. The appellant shall have costs of this appeal and in the Court of Appeal which I assess at 16.,000.00 for work done and material supplied in execution of a contract of electrification set out in two LPO's Exhibits 1 and 1A'.

2, even though the two bills of completion for total sum of 16,00.00 submitted by the plaintiff which were tendered as Exh. were dated 1/3/78 and 11/3/78.1 may observe also that the Manager of the defendant company duly signed the bills as submitted. This is because it is in breach of section 1(i)(a) and 7(2) of the National Electric Power Authority Act No.24 of 1972 which gave monopoly to generate, transmit, transform, distribute, sell, and supply electricity to the National Electric Power Authority. More expressly, the claim endorsed on the writ of summons and set out in the statement of claim reads: The defendant by Local Purchase Order No.1713 and dated 31st October, 1977 and by letter Reference No.

After pleadings, the parties made some futile attempts at settlement out of court. In his judgment the learned trial Judge made the following findings, inter alia: (i) That the contract between the parties was one in writing, contained in Exhs. which must be relied upon exclusivelv for ascertainment of the terms of the contract; (ii) That the contract was a divisible contract, which the plaintiff had substantially performed and so was entitled to payment, subject to any counter-claim by the defendant for any defects or omissions towards the diminution of the contract price; (iii) That as there was no counter-claim the plaintiff had proved his case beyond a balance of probability and so was entitled to payment. It was contended, therefore, that to construe the contract, as the court below did, to include supply of electricity was wrong. WAJ/ADM 069/7/78 awarded the work of laying of underground cables for petrol pumping stations in the following towns Mangu (5 pumps); Barkin Ladi (5 pumps); Nassarawa (5 pumps); Bassa (5 pumps); Pankshin (5 pumps); Wuse and Kanam (5 pumps).

During the negotiations the defendant made an offer - "without prejudice" - to pay 9,000 in full and final settlement of the claim. He therefore entered judgment to the plaintiff on his claim for 16,000.00 with interest at 10% with effect from 1st March 1978. In any case, the respondent cannot use its own wrong, i.e., illegality, to avoid liability. The plaintiff in accordance with the Local Purchase Order and the letter reference No.

But as the negotiations broke down, the case went to trial. WAJ/ADM 069/7/78 did carry out the projects in the specified areas and make a demand for payment of work done which the defendant refused or neglected to pay.

Leave a Reply