site logo

ZAKHEM OIL SERVE LIMITED V. ART-IN-SCIENCE LIMITED (2021)

Case Digest

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram

  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC (Presided)
  • Uwani Musa Abba-Aji JSC
  • Abdu Aboki JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji JSC
  • Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Zakhem Oil Serve Limited

Respondent:

  • Art-In-Science Limited
Suit number: SC. 165/2009

Background

This case originates from an action taken by Art-In-Science Limited (the Respondent) against Zakhem Oil Serve Limited (the Appellant) under the undefended list at the High Court of Rivers State. The Respondent claimed a total of N6,562,500.00, which represented the cost of pipes supplied to the Appellant under a contract, coupled with interest due to non-payment. The Appellant filed a notice of intention to defend, accompanied by a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, which was eventually withdrawn. The trial court ruled in favor of the Respondent, prompting the Appellant to appeal, claiming that their fundamental rights were violated and that errors were made by the lower courts.

Issues

The key issues presented were:

  1. Whether the hearing of the appeal on February 17, 2009, constituted a breach of the Appellant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in determining that the Appellant’s grounds were incompetent.
  3. Whether the withdrawal of a claim for N312,000.00 (Value Added Tax) was rightly affirmed by the Court below.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal, stating:

  1. Compliance with court rules is mandatory and serves the purpose of facilitating fair trials.
  2. Miscarriage of justice is defined as a failure to deliver justice; the burden lies with the party alleging such miscarriage to prove their claim.
  3. The authority of counsel at trial encompasses all matters unless expressly limited.
  4. Exhibits attached to affidavits form an integral part of those affidavits.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

  1. The Appellant was duly served with a hearing notice and their absence did not equate to a denial of fair hearing.
  2. Compliance with rules of court ensures proper judicial procedures and helps in the expeditious resolution of cases.
  3. The claims for VAT were properly withdrawn and did not undermine the judgment's integrity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was unmeritorious and upheld the decisions of the lower courts. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed, requiring the Appellant to pay the claimed sums, with interest as stated.

Significance

This case emphasizes the importance of adherence to court procedures and the challenges associated with raising jurisdictional issues after withdrawing them. It underscores the necessity for litigants to be diligent and present during court hearings while also clarifying the scope of a legal practitioner’s authority in managing trial procedures.