BANK OF THE NORTH LTD V. INTRA BANK S.A.

• Pages: 63-68

BANK OF THE NORTH LTD V. INTRA BANK S.A.



63

already been accepted in evidence legitimately, Lord Colerigde, C.J. at page 240

of the report stated that -

'The affidavit had already been used and to reject it now would be to displace

5



the defendants from a position they now legally occupied".

We think that in the circumstances of the present case, the application to cross-

examine the deponent to the affidavits of the petition was made too late and that

the Judge was wrong to have granted it.

10



The appeal is allowed and the order of Caxton-Martins, J. in Suit M/14

4

/

6

8

made on the 21st January, 1969 whereby he ordered that the petitioner be pro-

duced for the purposes of cross-examination is set aside and it is ordered that the

application to cross- examine him should be dismissed and this shall be the order

of the court. The respondents will pay the costs of this appeal fixed at 25 guineas.

15



Appeal allowed.

BANK OF THE NORTH

LTD

V.

INTRA BANK

S.A.

20

BANK OF THE NORTH LIMITED

V

25



INTRA BANK S.A.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

30



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

21st February, 1969.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 151/1968

Civil Procedure - Judgment on undefended List - Order 3 rules 9 - 14 of

Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules - Judge cannot set aside under Order

35



14 rule 11 of English Rules as undefended list judgment can only be set

aside by appeal or a fresh action.

ISSUES:

1.

Should the rules governing the undefended list be considered in conjunction

40



with the English practice rules ?

2.

Whether a judgment passed under the undefended list can be set aside by way

of motion.

FACTS:

The plaintiff claimed in Court an amount of money payable by the defendant to

45



it. It was proved by affidavit thai the defendant was served but did not make an

appearance. The plaintiff thus asked for judgment under Order 3 rules 9 - 14 and

was awarded It. 5 months later, the defendants filed a motion that the judgment

made in their absence be set aside. The High Court Judge ruled that he had no

jurisdiction to have determined the claim or to have allowed service of writ outside

50



jurisdiction, in the first place and thus set his judgment aside.

The plaintiff appealed.

HELD:

1.

The rules governing the practice known as Undefended List must be considered

in their own isolation and English Practice and Rules must not be brought in.