n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Maobison Inter-link Asso V. UTC Nig Plc (2013) CLR 4(k) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 12th 2013

Brief

  • Breach of contract
  • General damages
  • Counter claim
  • Reply to counter claim
  • Defence to counter claim

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, Holden at Port Harcourt, hereinafter called the court below, delivered on the 16th day of January, 2003. The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the trial court wherein it had instituted an action against the respondent herein as defendant and in paragraph 17 of the Statement of Claim filed on 25/10/94 claimed, inter alia, as follows:

  • "The plaintiff claims against the defendant the sum of N10,000,000.00 being special and General damages for breach of contract."

After pleadings were filed and exchanged and issues, were joined, the case proceeded to hearing. In its judgment delivered on 3rd November, 1999 judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as claimed.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the proceeded to the court below.

The gist of the case goes simply thus: The appellant had sometime approached the respondent for purchase of a Dorman Diesel Generating Set which the respondent agreed to sell at an agreed sum as evidence of the transaction. The set was to be delivered within four (4) days after the payment of the full purchase price. Upon contact with the Lagos Headquarters, the respondent later learnt that the last Dorman brand of generating set had been sold and delivered hence was no longer available to be sold and delivered to the appellant as agreed. The respondent then offered to sell to the appellant, a Perkins brand generating set of the same 500 KVA capacity but of a higher quality which the appellant was said to have agreed to, buy in place of the Dorman brand it had earlier sought to buy. The appellant denied it ever agreed to take Perkins brand in place of Dorman brand of generating set.

However, the Perkins generating set was delivered to the appellant's factory even though the appellant claimed to have written Exhibit B earlier to terminate the original agreement. But the respondent stated that the Chairman of the appellant who testified as PWI, not only agreed to buy the Perkins brand but was present when the set arrived from Lagos.

Issues

Whether the Court below was right to have entered judgment in favour of...

Read More