Close button
The Guardian
Email YouTube Facebook Instagram Twitter WhatsApp

Court dismisses 15-year-old case for lack of merit

Related

Justice Babajide Candide-Johnson of the Lagos State High Court, Igbosere has dismissed a 15-year-old suit filed by Edoh Emmanuel against Ganiyu Riliwan for lacking in merit.
   
The claimant had urged the court to order the defendant to pay him N2.5million, being 10 per cent of the professional feels of a service rendered in the sale of a property.

x
   
He also sought interest at 21 per cent on the sum less $2,000 already paid him, with effect from March 14, 2005, until the judgment is delivered and thereafter at 7.5 per cent per annum until fully liquidated.
   
But the defendant, through its counsel, John Dare Oloyede urged the court to dismiss the suit because there was no valid contract between parties, adding that anyone claiming special damages must prove it.
   
Oloyede drew the judge’s attention to the fact that the court had twice struck out the suit and that the claimant re-filed it to waste the court’s valuable time and that of parties.
   
The lawyer recalled how the matter went through the police investigation and was thrown out for lack of merit.
x
   
He urged the court to always look into any matter coming before it thoroughly before allowing it to pass through the litigation process.
   
Consequently, Justice Candide-Johnson, in his judgment, held that the claimant did not establish the existence of any agent/principal relationship with the defendant.
   
He said: “The amount of the purchase price of the house was not stated nor proved. The importance of knowing the price the house was sold and proof of it cannot be overemphasised as it is pivotal to the court to determine the amount alleged or claimed by the claimant.
   
“A mere assertion and or pleaded statement of claim should not be accepted without proof thereof. Apart from not proving the purchase price, the claimant also did not tender the scale of charges pleaded.”
x
   
According to the judge, it is not within the court’s purview to go fishing and looking for evidence to back up a claim by parties. 
   
The claimant, he stated, asserted that there was a gentleman’s agreement between both parties, but the court does not know if it was the $2,000 paid that was agreed.
   
“The ambiguity surrounding this dispute is overwhelming and unhelpful and the claimant has done less where he should have done more.
   
“In line with the above reasoning, I hold that the claimant has not satisfactorily proved his case. 
   
“Accordingly, therefore, the claimant’s reliefs fail and this suit is dismissed. This is the judgment of the court,” he declared.

x

Receive News Alerts on Whatsapp: +2348136370421

No comments yet