site logo

AKS PROPERTY INVESTMENT CO. LTD V. SURVEYOR B. J. AKPAN (200 (2007)

Case Digest

Court of Appeal (Calabar Division)

Coram

  • V. A. O. Omage JCA
  • Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta JCA
  • Mojeed A. Owoade JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Aks Property Investment Co. Ltd

Respondent:

  • Surveyor B. J. Akpan
Suit number: CA/C/141/2004

Background

This case arose from a contractual dispute between Aks Property Investment Co. Ltd (the appellant) and Surveyor B. J. Akpan (the respondent). The respondent, appointed as a consultant land surveyor, submitted a plan and cost amounting to N13,169,847.71 for his services. Discontented with the fee, the appellant slashed the amount to N6,411,345.84 without consulting the respondent which led to a rejection from the respondent who sought arbitration. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit under the undefended list procedure in the High Court of Justice, Akwa Ibom State, seeking to recover the original sum owed. The trial court, after the appellant failed to file a notice of intention to defend, ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding him his claim along with a 21% interest.

Issues

The appeal brought forth several critical issues:

  1. Whether the defendant could challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court at this stage without prior leave.
  2. Whether the vacation Judge had the jurisdiction to hear the case.
  3. Whether the trial court was right to conclude that the respondent had no defense to the claim.
  4. The appropriateness of the interest awarded and procedural issues regarding the undefended list.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held several key points which informed their decision:

  1. It is permissible to raise jurisdictional challenges at any stage in proceedings without needing leave.
  2. Vacation Judges are not limited to urgent matters but can hear other cases as per court rules.
  3. The discretionary power to place a suit on the undefended list is contingent upon the assessment that the plaintiff’s claims amount to a liquidated sum of money.

Court Findings

The appellate court found that:

  1. The trial court erred by failing to ensure that the claim was a liquidated demand before placing it on the undefended list.
  2. The jurisdiction issue raised had merit as the claims brought forth were disputed and not established to a liquidated demand standard as required.
  3. Procedural missteps rendered the trial court’s proceedings a nullity, necessitating a remand for retrial on the merits.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed due to the identified deficiencies, with the proceedings in the lower court declared void. The court remitted the case back to the High Court for retrial under the general cause list, emphasizing adherence to procedural law.

Significance

This case is significant in elucidating the boundaries of a vacation judge’s jurisdiction, the flexibility of raising jurisdictional issues at any stage, and the strict requirements surrounding undefended list procedures. It serves as a valuable reference for future cases where similar jurisdictional uncertainties may arise, particularly within the scope of contractual disputes.