Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Afrotec Technical Serv. Vs. MIA & Sons (2000) CLR 12(I) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 15th December, 2000

Brief

  • Unpaid seller
  • Conditional sale of goods
  • Lien held by unpaid seller
  • Terms of contract
  • Offer and counter offer
  • Negotiable instruments
  • Filing of Brief

Facts

In the Kaduna High Court, the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant read as follows:

  • 1
    "Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servant, or agents or other officers acting on its behalf from disposing of by sale or otherwise the equipments.
  • 2
    Damages
  • 3
    Specific Performance of Agreement of installation of equipments i.e.
    • a
      Parker 5245/4 Crushing plant combination
      • b
        Foden Model Dump Truck
        • c
          BD 440 Generating Set
          • d
            Spare parts for crushing plant at the Kaduna Quarry site of the plaintiff by the defendant or in the alternative refund of all monies paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the said equipments.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties and the case proceeded to trial, At the trial the plaintiff called two witnesses while the defendant called only one witness. After hearing evidence from both sides and the addresses of their counsel, the trial court adjourned for judgment. In a considered judgment delivered on 21/7/89, the learned trial judge lbiyeye J, after reviewing all the evidence before him, came to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties was a conditional sale and that the plaintiff had acted in violation of the conditions of sale i.e. instalmental payments. The learned trial judge, therefore dismissed plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as lacking in merit. On the 24th July 1989, the defendant sold the plant or machinery to AFCON ENGINEERING LTD, the 3rd Party herein.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, of the trial court the plaintiff successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Defendant thereafter, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • i
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its view that Ownership in the...
  • Read More