site logo

SUSANO PHARM. CO. LTD. VS. SOL PHARM. LTD. (2000)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • George Adesola Ogunlade, J.C.A.
  • Suleiman Galadima, J.C.A.
  • Amiru Sanusi, J.C.A.

Parties:

Appellant:

  • SOL Pharmaceutical Ltd.

Respondents:

  • Susano Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
  • Selwell Pharmaceutical Ltd.
Suit number: CA/L/130/97

Background

This appeal originated from the Federal High Court Lagos, concerning a trademark infringement case involving the 1st plaintiff, a foreign company, and the defendant, who was alleged to have produced and marketed a product misleadingly similar in name to the plaintiff's trademarked product. The case developed significantly as both parties presented various evidence, including a special power of attorney admitted as evidence by the trial judge, which prompted this appeal.

Issues

The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred by admitting the special power of attorney as evidence. Specifically, the appellant contended:

  1. The power of attorney was not pleaded as part of the case.
  2. The power of attorney was executed after the commencement of the action, thus making it inadmissible under Section 91(3) of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the special power of attorney was admissible based on several considerations:

  1. Pleadings serve to provide notice to the opposing party about the foundational claims being made, but they are not meant to substitute for evidence.
  2. It is unnecessary for the parties to state the names of witnesses in their pleadings. The key is presenting material facts, not merely evidence.
  3. Relationship between a document and pleadings should be interpreted to ensure that the purpose of the document is satisfied within the context of the case.

Court Findings

The court found:

  1. The special power of attorney was intended solely as an authority for a representative to testify on behalf of the foreign plaintiff, not as key evidence to substantiate the claim.
  2. As the person presenting the power of attorney did not have a personal bias and was acting in an official capacity, the document was admissible.
  3. The trial judge correctly ruled that the power of attorney related to the authority to testify rather than the substantive claims of the plaintiffs.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's decision. The admission of the special power of attorney was upheld based on its relevance to the authority to testify rather than the merits of the case.

Significance

This case underscores the legal principles surrounding evidentiary admissibility, particularly in the context of pleadings and documentary evidence. It clarifies that not every document requires formal pleading if its purpose is to establish authority to testify. Furthermore, the judgment provides critical insight into how courts should weigh the circumstances under which a document was created, particularly regarding personal interest and the potential for bias by the document's author.