Background
This case arises from a contract between the respondent (Babangida Umar Tukur) and the second appellant (Danbaba D. Suntai) for the construction of ten blocks for a motel in Taraba State. Initially, the contract sum was N2,611,708, which was later varied to N3,544,631. The respondent claimed outstanding payments for work done, and the appellants denied the claims, asserting that work was poorly executed, which led to the termination of the contract. Eventually, the trial court found in favor of the respondent, awarding him a total of N1,011,000.00.
Issues
The primary issues in this appeal included:
- Whether Exhibit ‘J’, the basis for the awarded claim, was hearsay.
- Whether time was of the essence in the contract execution.
- The admissibility of Exhibit ‘N’ as evidence of completion.
- The correctness of the trial court's dismissal of the appellants’ counter-claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held:
- Exhibit ‘J’ was properly admitted and not hearsay, as it was prepared at the behest of the appellants.
- Time was not expressly stipulated as essential in the contract, validating the judgment against the appellants for breaching the contract conditions.
- Exhibit ‘N’ was deemed credible evidence supporting the completion claim.
- The trial court was justified in dismissing the counter-claim, as the appellants were found to be in breach of the contract.
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The evidence provided through Exhibit ‘J’ was relevant and valid based on professional evaluations, not hearsay.
- There was no stipulated completion date in the contract, and the appellants failed to fulfill their payment obligations under Clause 30(1) of the terms.
- Seventy-five percent of the contract was completed, corroborated by photographic evidence and testimony.
- The appellants had breached the contract, precluding them from benefiting from their own default in seeking a counter-claim.
Conclusion
The appeal by the appellants was ultimately dismissed, with the court affirming the trial court’s decision in favor of the respondent. The court found that the appellants could not reverse the judgment based on claims that the evidence presented was hearsay or inadmissible.
Significance
This case is significant because it underscores principles related to contractual terms, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the responsibilities of parties in construction contracts. It clarifies that parties cannot benefit from wrongful actions leading to default in contract agreements, reaffirming judicial integrity in enforcing contractual obligations.