CaseLaw
Sparkling Breweries V. UBN (2001) CLR 7(s) (SC)
Judgement delivered on July 13th 2001
Brief
Facts
The Appellants case is that sometime in March 1986 the 3rd 6th Appellants applied to the Respondent for irrevocable letters of Credit for the importation of hops and other raw materials for the use of the 1st and 2nd Appellants. As a result of this the Respondent set out certain conditions (see exhibit 2) for the Appellants to meet before the letters of credit were established. The Appellants substantially complied with Exhibit 2 except conditions 2, 3 and 8 which they by Exhibit 3 asked the respondent to waive.
The Appellants stated that they entered into a further contract whereby the import licenses of the 3rd – 6th Appellants were to be utilised for the benefit of the 1st and 2nd Appellants for the production of beer and soft drinks. According to the Appellants the profit accruing from this arrangement would be shared 15% to the holders of the import licenses and the rest to defray the outstanding loan of the 1st and 2nd Appellants. The Appellants contended that the Respondent eventually waived the remaining conditions registered their Form M and processed the letters of credit which it later cancelled without any reference to them. The Appellants tendered Exhibits 10, 10(a) and 10(b) as copies of the established letters of credit which the Chairman/Managing Director of the Appellants took with him when he traveled overseas and he used in inducing their trade creditors as to payment to them and thus enabled him to secure from the creditors some quantities of hops. It is Appellants’ further case that when they learnt of the cancellation of the letters of credit they made several appeals to the Respondent to reconsider the position and warned it of the attendant damages the cancellation would cost them. When the Respondent would not yield, they instituted the action leading to this appeal.
The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Appellants failed to comply with all the conditions set out in Exhibit 2. The Respondent further contended that if the facts were as claimed by the Appellants, the right to sue did not lie in them but in their trade creditors. It finally contended that Exhibits 10,10(a) and 10(b) that is the alleged letters of credit, were mere forms as they did not contain such details as the name of the corresponding bank that would transform the forms into valid letters of credit. It is the Respondent’s case that the contract was not concluded.
The action proceeded to trial at the conclusion of which the learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment, found of the Appellants and adjudged.“On the whole plaintiffs claim as contained in their final enforced statement of claim succeed and are hereby allowed with cost of N2,000.00 to the plaintiffs.”
Respondent, dissatisfied with the Judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal which found the Judgment of the trial court perverse and therefore set it aside.
Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in reversing the finding of the...