A-Agreement of debt entered by the parties
B- Receipt of purchase of Hiace bus
C- Application for employment made by the defendant.
After evidence, plaintiff counsel
addressed the court, wherein he summarized the
case and submitted that admitted evidence
needs no further proof and that an unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted. He referred
to section 113 of Evidence Act 2011. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that plaintiff
proved its case on the preponderance of evidence and cited Ali Lawal V
Akinpelu (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 526) 460@485 and urged the court to find for the plaintiff.
I have given the highlight
of the case and hereby formulate
1 sole Issue for the determination of same as follows:
“Whether pJaintiff proved its case on
the preponderance of evidence as to be entitled
to the reJief sought7”
Proof in a civil
trial is on the preponderance of evidence or balance. of probability. Hence the plaintiP must establish or adduce credible evidence on the balance of probability
so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
I will now x-ray the evidence proffered to enable me resolve the issue I raised.
The plaintiff Mrs. Chioma Ofoeze testified that they engaged the defendant to drive their Hiace Bus as a commercial driver and to remit
daily sum of N8,0000.00 and a sum of N10,000 for peak periods. Plaintiff told the court that aher
defendant had submitted letter of employment, the Hiace bus was released
to him. According to plaintiff who gave evidence as PW1, the defendant remitted the daily sum as agreed
until December which was peak
period and defendant failed to keep to the agreement
and failed to remit any money for 29 days which amounted
to N290,000. PW1 testified
that when defendant eventually showed
up, he pleaded for time and she conceded and defendant then disappeared with
her cash and Hiace bus until he damaged the bus, vandalized it's parts and that it was with the aid of Police that he was arrested. PW1 testified that the total debt
including the
vandalized parts of the Hiace bus was N423, 000 which was reduced
into agreement.
She tendered the agreement and it was marked Exhibit A. She further tendered the receipt of purchase of the bus and defendants' letter of
employment as Exhibits. PW1 further narrated her ordeal in searching
for defendant and the inconveniences she suffered and claimed as per her writ.
The defendant Mr Ifeanyi Arukwe gave
his evidence that he has N50,000 cash which was handed over to the plaintiff in
court. Defendant told the court that he was a bus conductor before the plaintiff employed him as her Hiace
bus driver at a remittance of N10,000 during peak periods and N8,000 On
ordinary days. He further testified that
it is true that for 29 days peak period,
he failed to remit the money as agreed and that the bus later broke down and
was taken to a mechanic where it was later recovered
He further
testified that bUS that he undertook to pay back all the parts of the Hiace the
plaintiff replaced which led to exhibit
A. He admitted that he signed the ExhibitA freely and that he was arrested in
connection to the said stolen partsof the Hiace bus.
I did ask the
defendantto prodüce the mechanic to enable me ascertain why he took the bus
there and the nature of the bus before it was taken there and that he failed to
do.
From the total
evidence before me, It was
established that the plaintiff entrusted her Hiace bus to the defendant upon
defendant’application for
employment to her.
It was established that defendant failed to remit any money from the peak
period and even when another chance was given to
him, he absconded
with the bus until he was apprehended by the police. The evidence of plaintiff
was neither controverted nor challengedand as
rightly submitted
by plaintiff counsel, admitted facts need
no further proof. The case of Ali Lawal is hereby adopted
Jn the instant case, it was estabJished that the sum
of N290,000 was not remined by defendant. Again the defendant absconded and failed to remit any money.
It was further established after
vandalizing the Hiace bus, the parties agreed on what the defendant would pay
after some cut or deducttions
were made. This was later reduced to Exhibit A. It is really sad that defendant was empowered and he abused the privilege. I am of the firm conviction
that plaintiP suffered losses when she searched for defendant and further
engaged police to get defendant
arrested. I have no doubt that defendant acted in bad
fate and abused
the privilege granted
to him by defendant and her husband. His actions are not justified and are hereby condemned. I