$125,850 Debt: Court Dismisses Suit against American Firm

A Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has dismissed a suit filed by Virtual Century Technologies and its owner, Ubong Andrew-Essien, demanding the sum of $125, 850 over alleged failed business transaction.

Justice L.A.M Folami in her judgement  held that she found no merit in the claimants’ demands for the sums of $27,350, $41,500 and $57,000, and thereby dismissed them accordingly.

The claimants had through their lawyer, Udom John Udom, in a suit marked LD/1692CMW2016, urged the court to compel the defendants, Resource Petrol and Petrochemicals Limited, Mr. Damon Lee and Mrs. Daunette Chung Lee, to pay them the sum of $27,350 at the interest rate of 21 percent per annum from May 2009 till judgment, and thereafter at the interest rate of 11 percent until the full satisfaction of the judgment sum.

The claimants also prayed the Court for a judgment in the sum of US$41,500 at the interest rate of 21 percent per annum from April 2015 till judgment and thereafter at the interest rate of 11 percent until full satisfaction of the judgment sum

They also sought additional $57,000 at the interest rate of 21 percent per annum from June 2015 till judgment, and thereafter at the interest rate of 11 percent until full satisfaction of the judgment sum.

The claimants in their statement of claim alleged that they were engaged by the defendants to carry out some works technology works for corporate brand, and to act as consultant in pre ground breaking activities in respect of the refinery at Ibeano, Akwa Ibom State, in the United States of America as well as to broker a meeting with the Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Udom Emmanuel.

The claimants alleged that the defendants did not pay for some work done, hence the need to recover the outstanding from the defendants jointly and severally.

However, the defendants in their statement of defence filed by their lawyer, Omolola Aderolu, argued that the claimants’ claims are against a wrong party who never contracted the claimants for any work and that the instant case was instituted out of jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in the United States of America where the contracts were executed.

The defendants also submitted that part of the claim of the claimants is statute barred.

The suit was initiated by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated January 26, 2016.

Upon parties joining issues in respect of the case, the case was adjourned for Case Management Conference.

The Case Management Conference was conducted by her Lordship, Justice S. Sonaike, but parties failed to reach amicable settlement at mediation, accordingly, the case was reassigned to Justice L.A.M Folami for trial.

The defendants, through their counsel, Omolola Aderolu, in their final written address before the court, argued that the claimants did not place sufficient and credible evidence before the court to warrant the grant of their claims.

In her judgment, Justice Folami held that the claimants did not make any specific claim against the defendants in respect of its services for brokering a meeting with the governor of Akwa Ibom State, and contended that the court cannot therefore make any findings in respect of the claim for demand of payment for brokering the meeting.

Justice Folami also held that the claimants failed to prove entitlement to the sum of $41,000 claimed in relief 2 and also failed to prove entitlement to the sum of $57,000 claimed in relief 3 respectively.

“I find and hereby hold that the failure of the claimants to file a reply to the allegation of the defendants in respect of the rebranding of the company logo and letterhead is fatal to its case as it amounts to an admission of the facts contained.

“Accordingly, I hereby hold that the case of the claimants for payment for rebranding of company logo and letterheads fails, as there is no evidence in rebuttal of defendants’ allegation that the job had already been paid for,” Justice Folami held.

The court, however, held that the suit is not statute barred, and that there was no conflict of interest on the part of the second claimant and it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case.