Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

John Shoy Int’l Ltd V. Federal Housing Authority (2016) CLR 6(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 17th 2016

Brief

  • Jurisdiction of the court
  • Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Federal High court jurisdiction
  • Simple contract
  • Section 251(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(p) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(q) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(s) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(0) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 236 of the 1979 Constitution
  • Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution
  • Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Facts

    On the 6th of January 1998, the Appellant herein was awarded a contract vide a letter by the Respondent herein to construct 2 block/units of MASFA house type in Gwarimpa II Estate in the sum of N25,049,648.36k (Twenty-Five Million, Forty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty - Eight Naira Thirty-Six kobo).

    In addition, by a letter dated the 18th of May, 2001, the Appellant was further authorized to install Aluminum windows on the house at the sum of N2, 858.149.75k (Two Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Forty-Nine Naira, Seventy-Five kobo). However, the Respondent however disagrees and put the sum at N2, 614,439.00 (Two Million, Six Hundred and Fourteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Nine Naira).

    The Appellant commenced her action against the Respondent under the undefended list procedure claiming N2,858,149.75k being the cost of repairs of roof and completion of Aluminum doors and windows 546,958.88k retention fee all totaling N3,405,107.63k and 10% on the entire sum as provided by the F.C.T. High Court Civil Procedure Rules from the date of judgment till the entire sum is liquidated.

    Subsequently, the learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the Appellant herein.

    Dissatisfied, the Respondent herein appeal to the Court of Appeal postulating that being a Federal Government Agency, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court had no jurisdiction to have tried the suit. The appeal was upheld.

    Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Apex Court.

    Issues

    That having regard to the claim of the plaintiff, whether the trial court lacked...

    Read More