CaseLaw
Saraki V. S.G.B.N & Anor (1995) CLR 1(O) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiffs' case was that at all times relevant to the matter called in question in this suit, the defendant was resident abroad, namely London, and that the defendant represented to the plaintiffs that he was so resident when he took from the 1st plaintiff a loan of $5,000,000.00. It was the claim of the plaintiffs that this loan was guaranteed by the 2nd plaintiff before the money was made available to the defendant. Upon demand, the defendant defaulted and the 2nd plaintiffs as guarantor settled the debt and informed the defendant of the repayment of the debt which then became surrogated to the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged his indebtedness to the 2nd plaintiff and promised to settle same.
On the other hand, the defendant's case (as disclosed by his statement of defence filed) was that he was not resident in London at the time of the alleged loan and as leader of the Senate of the National Assembly from 1979 and also re-elected in 1983, he could not have been so resident. In the circumstance of the case, the defendant raised a plea of illegality under Sections 3 and 8 of the Exchange Control Act, 1962. The defendant pleaded further that there was no monetary transaction between him and the plaintiffs or either of them; but he referred to an agreement dated 31st March, 1983 between the 1st plaintiff and a third party for which he furnished a guarantee to secure the repayment by that third party of its debt to the 1st plaintiff. The defendant also pleaded that any payment of money to the 1st plaintiff by the 2nd plaintiff as alleged in the statement of claim was not made by the 2nd plaintiff as the defendant's guarantor or at the defendant's request.
The plaintiffs commenced their case by calling their only witness on the 27th day of July, 1990. That witness was cross-examined on the 10th January 1991. On 15th March, 1991, the court granted the defendant leave to recall P.W 1- Mr. Fasanu. The defendant claimed that without the only witness re-entering the witness box to be cross-examined in compliance with the order of the court granting leave for recall and without a formal closure of the plaintiffs' case, the court decided to close the case of the defence based on the reason that the defendant who has been failing to appear in court was not given further indulgence of adjournment and eventually, the court called upon the counsel for the defendant to address it.
After hearing the addresses of both counsel, the court delivered judgment on the 30th day of June, 1993, entering judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, plus interests and costs.