STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

COUNTER CLAIM – BE RELATED TO THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

A counter claim to quote from Bairamien, JSC in Oyegbola v. Esso WA (1966) 1 All NLR 170 is a weapon of offence which enables a defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectively as in an independent action. The counter-claim must be directly related to the principal claim but not outside of and independent of the subject matter of the claim. – Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

claim, counter-claim

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT MUST RELATE TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIM BEFORE IT CAN BE ENFORCED

I respectfully share the same view with the learned counsel for the 2nd – 14th respondents that jurisdiction of the court to enter judgment in accordance with the terms of settlement reached by parties is circumscribed by the claims filed before the court. If the terms of settlement are not within the purview of the plaintiff’s claim, it will be difficult for the court to allow filling of the terms, which will form the basis of the court judgment. The judgment of the court must reflect the claims before the court. This is so because it is a well settled principle that the court has no jurisdiction to grant a relief that has not been claimed.

— S. Galadima, JCA. Jadesimi & Anor. v. Egbe (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

GENERAL TRAVERSE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS

It has long been settled that the general traverse or general denial usually contained in the first paragraph of every statement of defence as in the instant case, which has earlier been quoted above, is not admissible as effective denial of essential and material allegations in the statement of claim. Such essential materials, as averments concerning the root of title of the claimant should be specifically traversed. See Akintola v. Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24) 598, Balogun v. UBA (1992) 7 SCNJ 61, Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2013) 56 NSCQR 471, UBN v. Chimaeze (2014) 58 NSCQR 155 at 188 … The general denial in paragraph 2 of the statement of defence also does not amount to a positive denial in law. It is devoid of joining issue on the material important pleading, upon which the respondent lays claim to the property in dispute. By the established rules of pleadings, the respondent is therefore deemed to have admitted the averments. One of the functions of pleadings is to afford parties in the case adequate notice of the nature of their respective cases to each other; thereby circumscribing and fixing issues in respect of which they are in agreement and those in which they are contesting. In as much as the appellant failed to controvert the relevant pleadings of the respondent on the issue of custom of inheritance, it is deemed that there is no controversy between them on the issue of inheritance under Ebira Native Law and Custom. It is taken as having been established and needs no further proof. See Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended; National Investment v. Thompson Organizations and Ors (1969) 1 NMLR 99 at 103, Uredi v. Dada (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.69) 237 S.C Jacobson Eng. Ltd. v. UBA Ltd. (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.283) 586.

— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Alabi v Audu (2017) – CA/A/494/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF A COUNTER CLAIM

By our practice, a counter-claim is clearly marked “COUNTER-CLAIM” and the defendant, who in his apparently changed status of plaintiff, avers in numbered paragraphs his claim which finally ends in the relief or reliefs sought. A counter-claim, though related to the principal action, is a separate and independent action and our adjectival law requires that it must be filed separately. The separate and independent nature of a counter-claim is borne out from the fact that it allows the defendant to maintain an action against the plaintiff as profitably as in a separate suit. It is a weapon of defence which enables the defendant/to enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectually as an independent action. As a matter of law, a counter-claim is a cross action with its separate pleadings, judgment and costs. It is almost in a world of its own. But a counter-claim cannot be inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim in the sense that it cannot erect a totally different case from that of the plaintiff.

– Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

A REPLY TO STATEMENT OF DEFENCE MUST NOT CONTAIN ANY NEW CLAIM

Adeniji v. Fetuga (1990) 5 WLR (Pt. 150) 375 this Court per Akanbi J.C.A. (as he then was) held thus:- “A reply is the Plaintiff’s answer or response to any issue raised by the Defendant in his defence and which the Plaintiff seeks to challenge, deny or admit or object to either or ground of law or a mis-statement of the cause of action and it is not permissible in a reply to the defence to raise a new cause of action not set out in the writ of summons, for a Plaintiff must not in his reply make any allegation of fact or raise any new ground of claim different from what is contained in his statement of claim.”

Was this dictum helpful?

FAILURE TO FILE REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT ADMISSION OF THE COUNTERCLAIM

I had in this Judgment, noted as did the court below, that the Appellant, never filed any defence or reply to the counter-claim (even on his admission), it was “irregularly” filed. I am aware however, and this is also settled, that where a plaintiff fails to or neglects to file a defence or a Reply to a counter-claim, it is of no moment and it is not fatal to the claim. This is because, if the Plaintiff succeeds in his claim, the counter-claim is useless. See the case of Dabup v. Kola (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.317) 254 @ 270, 281; (1993) 12 SCNJ.1. It is not that the plaintiff is deemed to admit the counter-claim as stated at page 166 of the Records by the court below. It is only so, where it relates to the failure of the defendant, to file a Statement of Defence. In that case, all material facts alleged in the Statement of Defence, are put in issue. See the case of Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 164@ 172; (1989) 5 SCNJ. 71- per Kawu JSC, referred to in the case of Obot v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt.310) 140 @ 162; (1993) 9 SCNJ. (Pt. II) 268. See also T. A. Aguda paragraph 109 page 101 – 102 Practice and Procedure in Civil Actions in the High Court of Nigeria.

— F. Ogbuagu, JSC. Akpaji v. Udemba (2009) – SC.247/2002

Was this dictum helpful?

SETTING UP A COUNTER CLAIM

The procedure for setting up a counter-claim is well established in law. It is the usual practice to commence a counter-claim immediately after the defence. It could be on the same page with the defence or on a fresh or separate page. There is no rule of the thumb. It depends upon the state of the individual pleadings. The important thing is that it should follow immediately after the defence and that is the meaning of the conjunction “and” found in most rules of court.

– Niki Tobi JSC. Okonkwo v. Cooperative Bank (2003)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.