POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. MAC-CAJETAN AGBASI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

account for their (sic) where about despite repeated demands to that effect. (b) The sum of N125,000.00 (one Hundred and Twenty, Five thousand naira) only being the cost profit the plaintiff would have made., if the defendants had performed as contracted,between 28th November 1994 to 28th April 1995 and (c) N25,000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand Naira) only being the monthly profit the Plaintiff normally makes form May 1995 until judgment is given. See page 18 paragraph 17 of the Record of the Trial court. At the conclusion of the trial, the lower court delivered the judgment thereof on 30/11/99 to the effect inter alia that: I therefore hold the defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff to this extent. (i) the sum of N300,000,00 market value of Minolta supply Board. (ii) 60% of the profit the Plaintiff would have made between 28th November 1994 to 28th April 1995, i.e. 60% of N 12 5,000.00 - N75,000.00. (iii) 60% of the monthly profit the Plaintiff would have made between May 1995 and November 30th 1999, i.e. 60% of N 1, 3 5 0,000.00 N810,000. 00, Total -- N1,185,000.00. There is no order as to costs. Not unnaturally, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court alluded to above, the four Appellants have filed this appeal initially upon eight grounds of appeal. see pages 135 - 140 of the Records. However its also evident from the records of this court that the Appellants were duly granted 13
leave to amend grounds 1,2,3, 4, 6 and 7 of the original grounds filed on 28/10/2002 along with the notice of appeal. It is instructive that both parties have filed and exchanged the brief of argument thereof. The Appellants brief dated t0/0212005 and filed on the same date hers raised a total of six issues for determination, to wit: 1. Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to consider and pronounce upon exhibit I containing the terms and conditions of the contract occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 2. Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence before him and was right in the conclusion reached thereby. 3. Whether the learned trial judge rightly placed the onus on the defendants to prove that they delivered the parcel to the addressee, 4. Whether the judgment of the trial court which is based on the provisions of the Nigerian postal service Department Act CAP 322, which was no longer in force at the time of 5 commencement of the action and judgment is valid. 5. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to apply well known principles of law to the proved and accepted facts. 6. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the trial which was conducted in the absence of the defendants when there was no proof of service of hearing notice as ordered was proper and can be allowed to stand. On the part thereof the Respondent filed his brief 14
Page 2 and 3: POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. M
Page 4 and 5: "It is well settled law that, once
Page 6 and 7: 6 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SERVICE
Page 8 and 9: 6. Whether in the circumstances of
Page 10 and 11: P. J. Olayiwola Judge 13-4-99 From
Page 12 and 13: the respondent that there were proo
Page 16 and 17: on 22/3/2005 and raised therein six
Page 18 and 19: fundamental defect. Thus, absence o
Page 20 and 21: That fortiori the judgment delivere
Page 22 and 23: There was as usual no proof that th
Page 24: NWANKWO (2003) 9 NWLR (part 826) 59

POST MASTER GENERAL & ORS. V. MR. MAC-CAJETAN AGBASI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?