n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Onuora V. KRP Co. Ltd (2005) CLR 2(i) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 11th 2005

Brief

  • Jurisdiction of Federal High Court over ordinary contracts

Facts

The Appellant entered into a contract to purchase specified number of empty tins from the Respondent at an agreed amount and payment of the agreed sum was made. But before delivery was made to the Appellant, the Respondent had increased the price before delivery could be made to him. The Appellant was duly informed of the new price and was requested to pay the difference between what he had paid and the new unit price. The Appellant refused, insisting that the Respondent was bound to deliver to him the quantity he had ordered at the price agreed by the parties. This was the cause of action which the Appellant wanted to enforce by going to Court.

The Appellant, as Plaintiff, commenced this action at the Federal High Court, Kaduna as Suit No.FRC/KD/CS/7/96 against the Respondent as Defendant. His claim, was for:

  • a
    An order of Court declaring the purported price increase/review of the 18 litre empty tins by the Defendant from N25 to N40 with effect from 10/5/93 as not affecting the Plaintiff who paid for his own empty tins much earlier than the commencement date of the price increase/review.
  • b
    An order of specific performance directing the Defendant to issue/supply the Plaintiff the remaining 17,012 piece of the 18 litre empty tins not later than 30 days from the date of judgment.
  • c
    N1,000,000 general damages from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the breach of the arrangement/agreement between him and the Defendant."

The parties filed their respective pleadings and the trial took place before O.J. Okeke, J. The learned trial Judge delivered his reserved judgment on 1/8/97 in which he granted the declaration sought by the Plaintiff in the first leg of his claim and the claim for specific performance sought in the second leg. The claim for damages sought in the third leg of the claim was, however, refused. N1,000 was awarded as costs.

The Defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment and it filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division. A ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court was raised with leave of the Court of Appeal. The parties filed their briefs of argument in the lower Court and the issue of jurisdiction of the trial Court was the main issue canvassed before the Court of Appeal. The Court, in its judgment delivered on 5/6/2000 in Suit No. CA/K/215/97 (Coram R.D. Mohammed, Omage & Obadina, JJ.C.A) allowed the appeal on the ground that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The judgment and orders of the trial Federal High Court, Kaduna were set aside and an order striking out the Plaintiff's claim was substituted in their place.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court below was right in the instant matter in requiring the...

Read More