The respondent was the plaintiff in the action brought by it against the appellant in the High Court of Plateau State sitting at Jos. The claim was for the sum of N275,632.33k being the balance of the price of motor vehicles allegedly sold and delivered to the appellant by the respondent.

After the suit had been transferred from the Undefended List to the General List for hearing and determination, the parties filed and exchanged pleadings. The respondent filed a Statement of Claim and the appellant filed a Statement of Defence. With the leave of the court, the respondent filed an amended Statement of Claim and caused a copy thereof to be served on the appellant.

The respondent led evidence through witnesses who testified at the trial and tendered some documents in support of its claim but the appellant re¬sted its defence on the respondent's case. The allegation of the respondent was that there were series of transactions between it and the appellant on the basis of which the respondent sold and delivered some motor vehicles to the appellant. The appellant paid to the respondent part of the total amount due as the purchase price of the motor vehicles and the sum being claimed from the appellant represented the balance which had remained unpaid.

Invoice No.762 was one of the invoices tendered by the respondent in support of its claim but it was rejected on the basis of the appellant's objec¬tion that it was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim. The respondent applied for and obtained leave of the lower court to amend the Statement of Claim. The validity or otherwise of the Amended Statement of Claim, which has been raised in this appeal, is a different matter. What is important, for the present purpose is that despite the fact that invoice No.762 was pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim, the lower court stated that it was not admissible because it was a document which had earlier been rejected, in the same proceeding. With reference to invoice No.907, the objection of the ap¬pellant to its admissibility was that it was not specifically pleaded. The lower court admitted it on the ground that it was a continuation of invoice No.906 which was specifically pleaded.

The learned trial Judge, Emefo, J., after giving consideration to the evi¬dence and to the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, entered judgment for the respondent in the sum N220,632.33. He held that there was an agreement or contract between the appellant and the respondent in relation to the sale of some motor vehicles which the respondent delivered to the appellant and in relation to which the sum of N220,632.33K being the balance of the purchase price was outstanding.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant has appealed to this court.