The appellant sued the respondent at the High Court claiming delivery in good working condition of some equipment, loss of use of the said equipment, refund of money paid to the respondent for services and materials allegedly rendered and supplied but which were not infact rendered or supplied as well as general damages.

The case of the appellant was that something between 1975 and 1976, it delivered to the respondent some machines and equipment for repairs and refurbishment. The respondents later sent invoices to show that repairs had been effected in the sum of N112, 624.28. The appellant would have none of that as it insisted the money should be considerably less than that sum.

However, the parties later agreed to the sum of N74, 069.29. this amount was paid by installments as agreed by the parties and the installmental payment was completed in February 1997. Having completed the cost of alleged repairs, the respondent for some unaccountable reasons failed to deliver the goods. The appellant stated that it was discovered that no repairs or refurbishment of the equipment was made and the failure to repair and deliver the equipment and machines in good working condition which was the basis of the contract led to the inevitable detention of the goods.

The respondent rejected all the averment that tended to show that there was a breach of contract from its side stating that all necessary repairs were carried out. It averred further that the issue of repairs or non-repairs was a matter that should have been taken up when the respondent took an action against the appellant originally for the recovery of the appellant’s indebtedness originally communicated to it through the invoice.

The respondent also contended that it was not its practice to provide garage coverage for those types of equipment and that if after nearly 3 years repairs the appellant did not collect the machines then any resultant conditions must be due to non-use. Besides, the respondent further contended, it was not part of its duty to return the goods after the completion of the repairs.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.