By InvestAdvocate

Lagos (INVESTADVOCATE) – A Lagos High Court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square Court Complex has slammed Wema Bank Plc (Defendant) US$85,000 (N14, 025,000) for trying to evade Terms of Contract with ABC/Information Technology Limited (Claimant) www.investadvocateng.com can authoritatively Report.

In the Court Judgment obtained by www.investadvocateng.com in Lagos Nigeria, the Court declared that Wema Bank is indebted to ABC/Information Technology Limited in the sum of US$ 85,000 (N14, 025,000) being outstanding payment for the installation of one new unit Sunfire E6900 Server at the Bank’s premises on the instruction of the Bank.

Justice Morenike Obadina declared this in the judgment she delivered on suit No LD/1932/09 between the Claimant and the Defendant.

She also held that the Claimant has established its claim on the interest and is therefore entitled to 21 percent (21%) interest on the aforementioned sum of US$ 85,000 from June 10 2009 till the judgment day February 14 2012.

Also, by virtue of Order 35 Rule 4 of the Rules of High Court of Lagos State, the Judge awarded 10% interest to the claimant from the Day of Judgment till the entire judgment sum plus the accrued interest is liquidated.

Besides, the sum of N25, 000 was awarded to the ABC Information Technology against the Bank as cost of the action.

However, Justice Obadina dismissed the second claim of N11, 514,841 paid for Government Taxes, VAT and Import Duty which the claimant claimed that it paid on behalf of Wema Bank in the execution of the supply contract.

Justice Obadina in dismissing the claim, said that she has read the Claimant’s pleadings severally and there was nowhere in the pleadings where Computer Information Systems Nigeria Limited was mentioned as Principal Partner of the Claimant.

“Since there is no nexus shown by evidence between Computer Information Systems Nigeria Limited and the Claimant and proof that the goods cleared by Computer Information systems Nigeria Limited relate to this contract, I am unable to grant this relief. The claim is dismissed” the judge declared.

Reviewing the submissions of Counsel to the Parties, the only issue identified by the Judge for determination is whether the Claimant proved its case and whether it is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Before going into the merit of the case, the Court first resolved the issue of non compliance by the Defendant with Order 30, Rule 10(1) of the 2004 Rules raised by the Claimant’s Counsel.

The Court faulted the Defendant for failing to comply with the order when it substituted its first witness who deposed to statement on oath. In the Court’s view, the strict effect of the non compliance of the order is that there was no witness deposition accompanying the statement of defence.

However, it was posited that the non compliance of the order was an irregularity which will not nullify the steps taken, especially as the Claimant’s Counsel was aware of the irregularity on time and did not take steps to object same but allowed the irregularity to subsist till judgment. According to the Judge, it was too late to raise the issue as the Claimant was deemed to have ignored its right.

Dwelling on the main issue of contract which is the subject matter, the Court considered the principles of law of contract, the legal effects of offer, acceptance, counter offer, terms of the contract and other issues. It is trite law that an offer must be accepted in order to crystallize into a contract.

The court held that exhibit C4 which is a counter offer by the Claimant is not a correspondence written in the process of negotiations for contract but for all intents and purposes a counter offer and not an acceptance of the offer.

It was held that Wema Bank accepted the Claimant’s counter offer by its conduct in making payment as stipulated in exhibit C4 and not as stipulated in exhibit C3. More so, by the act or performance of the Bank, the agreement binding the parties is therefore exhibit C4 (counter offer letter) and not exhibit C3 (offer letter).

Consequently, it was held by the Court that Wema Bank is bound by all the terms of counter offer as it failed to cancel the contract and re-award it to another Company after it received the claimant’s letter but went ahead to accept it by conduct.

“There is uncontroverted evidence before the court that the claimant installed the server. This was confirmed by exhibit C6 and C7. The cost of installation as stated in exhibit C4 is US$ 85,000. I am satisfied that the claimant having performed its own side of the contract is entitled to this sum” the judge asserted.