Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant commenced this action by originating processes including statement of facts, witness deposition, list of witness, as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial dated 17/4/15 and sought the following reliefs - 1. An order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=4,012,315.98 (Four Million Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifteen Naira Ninety-Eight Kobo) being the total outstanding sum remaining unpaid on the Toyota Corolla saloon car with, at all material times, Lagos registration number LQ 211 AAA or in the alternative, 2. An order directing the Defendant to return to the Claimant forthwith the Toyota Corolla car with all material times Lagos registration number LQ 211 AAA previously allocated to the Defendant. 3. Cost The Defendant filed his statement of defence in this matter and by an order of the honourable court granted on the 24/4/17 amended his statement of defence and other processes. The amended defence processes are dated 27/4/17. 2. Case of the Claimant On 26/9/17, the Claimant opened its case. It called one Akeem Bamidele Ogunloye as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness depositions dated 23/7/17 and 27/3/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 12 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C12 respectively. The case of the Claimant is that the Defendant was its employee from March 2005 to 2nd August 2010 when the Defendant resigned from the Claimant’ employment, which resignation was accepted by the Claimant on the same day; that in September 2007, the Claimant allocated a Toyota Saloon Car with Registration number at all material times of LQ 211 AAA to the Defendant as his official vehicle under the Claimant’s Company Car Ownership Scheme Policy, which the Defendant subscribed to pursuant to a Car Lien Agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant; that under the Car lien Agreement (Exhibit C4) and the Company Car Ownership Policy, the Claimant would hold a lien over the vehicle which would only be discharged when the Defendant paid off the entire sum outstanding on the loan; that the Defendant resigned his employment with the Claimant without having completed payment for the car pursuant to the car lease agreement, which he entered into with the claimant Company; that as a result, the Claimant asserts ownership of the Toyota Corolla as its lien over the car has not been discharged; that it had made a formal demand for the car to be returned was made to the Defendant on the 25th November 2010 and several subsequent demands made thereafter, all to no avail; that the Defendant has neither returned the car nor paid the outstanding money to the Claimant; that under terms of the Car Lien agreement (Exhibit C4) and the Car Ownership scheme Policy, the Defendant is under an obligation to either return the car to the Claimant or pay up the total outstanding sum remaining unpaid on the car and that the total sum outstanding and remaining unpaid is =N=4,012,315.98 (Four Million, Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifteen Naira, Ninety-Eight Kobo. Under cross examination, the witness stated that there are 2 parties to a lease - Lessee and Lessor.; that the Claimant is the Lessee to the Defendant; that Claimant’s name is not on any of the documents; that the present lease is a Finance Lease in which Claimant went through a 3rd party to seek a loan and the risk and ownership of the items fall on the Claimant; that it is left for the Claimant to have it on its Balance sheet; that the liability is on Claimant until settlement of the loan; that deductions were made from the salary of Defendant for repayment of the car loan; that Claimant is not a money lender and that an asset can under Accounting rule be apportioned to both private and official use. 3. Case of the Defendant At the close of the case of the Claimant, the Defendant opened his case on 13/2/18. The Defendant testified in chief, adopted his witness deposition dated 27/4/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibits. The documents were all admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D6 respectively. The simple case put forward by the Defendant is that he worked for the Claimant; that he was forced to resign from his employment; that the Car in dispute did not belong to the Claimant but rather he purchased same by a loan obtained from First Bank of Nigeria Plc and that the only role played by the Claimant was in making monthly deductions from his salaries and remitting same to the First Bank of Nigeria Plc; that he has finished paying the loan obtained from the First bank of Nigeria Plc and that the ownership of the car resides in him. Under cross examination, the Defendant stated that he never applied for any car loan; that that Exh. C4 -, car lien agreement and Exh. C5- application to join car ownership scheme were unknown to him; that the signatures on Exh. C4 and Exh. C5 were unknown to him; that he got his present car through a lease agreement between First Bank Plc and him with the Claimant as his employer undertaking to deduct certain sum from his salary for 30 months for repayment to First Bank; that there is no agreement between him and First Bank of Nigeria; that the role of the Claimant is to deduct money from his salary and remit send to First Bank for repayment of the car loan; that the deduction started in October 2007; that he was asked to resign in August 2/8/2010 and I did; that the brand of the car is Toyota Corolla; that the value of the car then was =N=3.1 million and that by Exh.D6 =N=28,612.00 was being deducted monthly from his salary for the car lease. 4. Submissions on Behalf of the Defendant On 13/6/18, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a final written address and set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether in fact the Claimant gave the Defendant a car loan of =N=3,433,500.00 (Three Million Four Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Naira). 2. There not being a car loan from the Claimant to the Defendant whether the Claimant is entitled to the car and or whether the Claimant has proved title to the car. 3. Whether the Claimant can charge interest of 21% or any interest if at all. 4. Whether the court will enforce an agreement or contract which is egregiously illegal. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant was not the signatory to Exh. C4 & Exh. C5; that none of the exhibits is evidence of any car loan given to the Defendant by the Claimant and that parties are bound by their pleadings citing National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria v. Power & Industry Co. Limited (1986)1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 1 SC; that the burden is on the Claimant to prove the existence of a car loan and that same has not been discharged citing Section 132, Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel added that all the title documents of the car tendered are all in the name of the Defendant and First Bank of Nigeria Plc referring to Exh. D1-Exh. D5 and that oral evidence is not allowed to vary the contents of a document. On issue of interest claimed, learned Counsel submitted that there is no evidence of any agreement to charge interest at all and that the law is settled that the Court will not allow read into an agreement what parties failed to have ad-idem on citing Faloughi v. First Impressions Cleaners Limited (2014)7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 335. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant for lack of proof by evidence. 5. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant The final written address of the Claimant was filed by Counsel on 20/9/18. In it Counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant gave the Defendant a car loan of =N= 3,433,500.00 (The Million Four Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Naira). 2. Whether the Claimant can charge interest of 21% or any interest at all. 3. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant has sufficiently proved its case against the Defendant. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that while the car is valued at =N=3,433,500.00, the Defendant was to make a contribution of =N=1,716,750 which is 50% of the cost of the Car; that Exh. D6 is evidence of monthly payment of =N=28,612.50 towards liquidation of the sum of =N=1,716,750; that if the Defendant had been forthcoming in making the said payments over the 5-year period as contained in the Car Ownership Scheme Policy, he would have paid the sum of =N=1,716,750 which is half of the original cost of the vehicle valued at =N=3,433,500.00. Counsel thus urged the Court to discountenance the issues raised by the Defendant. Respecting the issue of payment of interest, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant suffered by the Defendant's failure to pay for the Car or return same and that the only way the losses suffered by the Claimant could be mitigated is by claiming for interest at the prevailing rate which is 21%. Counsel added that indeed the car ownership scheme was funded by First Bank of Nigeria Plc at the prevailing rate of 21%. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that in the circumstances of this case the Claimant has proved its case as required. Counsel thus prayed the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant. 6. Decision I patiently read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel for the parties in this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. The rather simple facts of this case as revealed from the evidence in chief of the lone witness called by the Claimant is that the Claimant allocated a vehicle as an official car to the Defendant who was then in its employment; that the vehicle allocation was by way of a car loan; that under the Car Lien Agreement and Company Car Ownership Policy the Claimant holds a lien over the vehicle which lien shall only be discharged when the Defendant has finished paying the entire sum outstanding on the loan. From the brief facts as recited and the evidence led in this case, either side has raised issue as to whether or not the Claimant gave a loan to the Defendant. I also find that issue to be central to the resolution of this case. I therefore set down a lone issue for the resolution of this case as follows - Whether or not the Claimant gave a loan in the sum of Three Million Four Hundred and Thirty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Naira (=N= 3,433,500.00). The determination of this issue is critical to the entire claims of the Claimant. Once it is resolved one way or the other every other issue becomes secondary. It is the assertion of the Claimant that it gave a loan to the Defendant. This assertion is contained in both the statement of facts as well as the witness deposition of the Claimant's lone witness called at trial. It is not just sufficient to make assertions. The assertions must however be backed up by concrete, credible and admissible evidence. After all the law is trite that he who asserts must prove. The evidence required in proof may be oral, written or both. While documentary evidence is much more reliable, see Mlya v. Mshelizah (2004) 14 WRN 128, Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Or. 999) 1 at 233, In Ogbeide v. Osifo (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1022) 423 at 441, t the Court will however not permit an oral evidence to vary the content of a documentary evidence. See Awazie v. Okoroafor (2015) LPELR-40210 (CA). Now, in proof of its case against the Defendant, the Claimant tendered 11 exhibits marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C11. I perused and carefully evaluated all these exhibits. I note firstly that none of the exhibits tendered is a loan agreement or any such agreement between the parties relating to loan in the sum claimed by the Claimant or any sum at all. It may not be out of place to state that an alleged loan agreement involving the type of sum of money being claimed by the Claimant will invariably be in writing. It will also be acceptable and not out of place to state that the Claimant in this case as a corporate public quoted company will hardly be expected to engage in financial transaction running into millions of Naira without some form of safety net in terms of written agreement. This is the more so taking cognizance of the fact that interest is expected to be charged on the loan as it now turned out. It is for a party seeking judicial intervention to adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his case. This has not been done in the instant case. The Claimant would seem to have left it to the Court to do its case for it. No doubt it is not the duty of the Court to make case for a party but rather to determine a case brought up on the basis on the available evidence. The Court of Appeal per Ariwoola JCA (as he then was) in Dankula v. Shagamu (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt.413) 1280 at P. 1309 reiterated the position of the law on this issue when it held that it is not part of the duty of Court to speculate on the relevant required information which are not adduced or tendered in evidence and that the court does not make out a case for a party which he has not made for himself. See also Adetoro v. Ogo-Oluwa Kitan Trading Co. Ltd (2002) 9 Wobo (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 465; N.E.P.A. v. Ugbaja (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 548) 106. Learned Counsel to the Claimant drew my attention to Exh. C3-Exh. C5. I must not lose sight of them. These are letter of Car Allocation dated 10/9/07, Car Lien Agreement With DN Meyer Plc and Application to Join Car Ownership Scheme respectively. Now, Exh. C3 allegedly allocated a Toyota Corolla 1.8 Saloon Car with Registration Number LQ 211 AAA to the Defendant effective from 19/9/07. But did that vehicle belong to the Claimant as at that date? I answer that question in the negative. This is because by Exh. D1 the ownership of that vehicle was already in the name of FBN/Oduwole E.F. See also Exh. D2 & Exh. D3. Exh. C4 on the other hand is the Car Lien Agreement with DN Meyer Plc. It was dated 17/9/17. The present parties are the same parties in that Agreement. Unfortunately, that exhibit did not make any reference to any particular car over which the Claimant has a lien. Even when Clause 4 of the Agreement states inter alia that ''The Company's lien on the vehicle shall be discharged when the employee finish paying the car loan. ....'' This Court is left in the dark as to how much was the loan in question as well as the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.The bottom line of my finding in this case is that the lone issue set down for determination must invariably be resolved against the Claimant and in favor of the Defendant. I so do. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. Claimant is to bear the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00 payable to the Defendant. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge