site logo

ZAKHEM CONSTRUCTION (NIG.) LTD V. BRITTANICA HORIZONTAL DRLL (2021)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Joseph Shagbaor Ikygeh JCA (Presided)
  • Abubakar Sadiq Umar JCA
  • Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Zakhem Construction (Nig.) Ltd

Respondent:

  • Brittanica Horizontal Directional Drilling Ltd
Suit number: CA/L/795/2015

Background

This case centers on an appeal from a ruling made by the High Court of Lagos State regarding a judgment delivered in favor of Brittanica Horizontal Directional Drilling Ltd (the Respondent) against Zakhem Construction (Nig.) Ltd (the Appellant). The initial judgment was entered due to the Appellant's failure to appear at a scheduled case management conference, as set out in Order 25, Rule 5 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2012. Following the judgment, Zakhem Construction filed a motion to set aside the ruling, which was, however, dismissed by the trial court, leading to this appeal.

Issues

The appeal brought forward several significant issues for consideration:

  1. Whether the trial court judiciously exercised its discretion when it refused to set aside the judgment in favor of the Respondent.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal should invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to step into the trial court's position and grant the Respondent's application for garnishee proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal resolved the key issues as follows:

  1. Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously. Since the rule did not specify that only the offending party must sign the undertaking to participate, the trial court’s assertion that counsel could not represent the interests of their client was improper.
  2. The requirement to show exceptional circumstances in setting aside a default judgment was unfounded under the relevant provisions, which only necessitated timely application accompanied by an undertaking.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that:

  1. The trial court misapplied the statutory requirements in denying the Appellant's motion, as the Appellant had adhered to the procedural obligations.
  2. There was no merit in refusing to set aside the judgment as the Appellant had met the conditions outlined in Order 25, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling of the trial court, and remitted the case back to the Chief Judge for reassignment to a different judge for trial. No costs were awarded to either party.

Significance

This case highlights the necessity for courts to adhere strictly to procedural rules and emphasizes the importance of reasonable interpretations of statutory provisions. It illustrates the need for courts to allow substantial justice to prevail over technicalities, particularly in the context of judgment applications in default of appearance, thereby ensuring fair treatment in judicial processes.