Background
This appeal arose from a judgment delivered by the High Court of Adamawa State, where the respondent, Bitask VOA Limited, claimed against the appellants, Amrita Holdings Limited and Dr. Mathews Idoni, for outstanding payments related to a tiling contract at the Yola International Hotel. The respondent had completed approximately 78.9% of the work before the contract was revoked by the appellants, leading to a claim of N17,213,270.49 and N2,433,747.65 for work done and retention fees, respectively. Additionally, the respondent sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
Issues
The Court had to determine several key issues:
- Whether the trial court correctly considered the evidence after dismissing the respondent's primary claim.
- Whether it was right for the trial court to award pre-judgment interest not pleaded or supported by evidence.
- Legitimacy of a retention fee that exceeded the claimed amount.
- The necessity of the second appellant being a party to the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
- The primary duty of assessing witness credibility lies with the trial court, and the appellate court typically defers to the trial court's findings unless there is a significant error.
- A trial court possesses the authority to suo motu award a lesser sum than claimed, provided there is adequate proof of that amount.
- Although a trial court has the discretion to accept or reject parts of witness testimonies, it must base its conclusion on credible evidence.
Court Findings
The Court concluded that the trial judge was right in dismissing the initial claim for the full amount while awarding a lesser percentage (71%) based on evidence from a witness (PW3) who was also an employee of the appellant. Furthermore, the pre-judgment interest was deemed to have been improperly awarded as it was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence of entitlement. The appellate court found no clear basis for the assessment of such interest, which must either be part of an agreement or supported by statutory provisions or customary laws.
Conclusion
The appellate court set aside the award of pre-judgment interest, deeming it erroneous, but otherwise upheld the trial court's decision regarding the percentage of work completed by the respondent. The appeal was allowed in part, with costs shared between the parties.
Significance
This ruling highlights the importance of proper procedural pleading and evidence presentation within contract disputes. It underscores the trial court's discretion in assessing witness credibility while clarifying the legal principles surrounding pre-judgment interests. The case serves as a reference for future contract and evidence-related disputes in Nigerian law, especially in construction and contractual engagements.