CaseLaw
Ukiri Vs. Prakla (2010) CLR 7(b) (SC)
Brief
Facts
The Appellant, a legal practitioner, commenced this action a the Plaintiff in Suit No.PHC/49/99,at the High Court of Rivers State, Holden at Port Harcourt by way of a Writ of Summons under the ‘Undefended List’’ procedure and claimed what according to him, was the outstanding remaining professional fees owed to him by the Respondent company as the Defendant.
The matter suffered two adjournments and was on 14/7/1995 fixed for hearing on 28/9/1995. On the 27/9/1995, the Respondent Company caused to be filed on its behalf, a Motion on Notice praying for an order setting aside the purported service on the Defendant/Appellant of the writ of summons and an order extending the time within which the Defendant/Applicant should file its memorandum of appearance, inter alia.
On the 31/1/1996, the learned trial Judge ruled on the application and refused it. He also entered judgment in favour of the Appellant on the Undefended List. The Respondent herein, felt aggrieved and appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division in Appeal No. CA/PH/523/95. The Registrar of the trial Court on the 22/2/1996 imposed conditions of appeal to be perfected by the Respondent, now Appellant at the Court of Appeal, within 30 days from that date. The conditions were not met by the Respondent and on the 8th of February, 1998, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent's appeal for failure to comply with the conditions of the appeal as provided by Order 3 Rule 20 of the Court of Appeal Rules. On the 19/2/1998, the Respondent filed an application in the Court of Appeal praying amongst other prayers, the restoration of the dismissed appeal. The Respondent Company claimed it had no notice of conditions of appeal imposed by the registrar on the 22/2/1996. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Respondent and restored the appeal. In consideration of the substantive appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent's appeal, set aside the decisions of the trial Court and in its place, granted the prayers of the Respondent in relation to leave to defend the action by remitting the case back to the trial Court for trial on the merits in the normal manner by filling of pleadings.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether or not the Respondent's appeal was competent and whether or not the...