Debt: Court Fixes Judgment Date in Contractor Suit Against Oyedepo, Church

An Ogun State High Court sitting at Ota will, on January 20, 2025, deliver judgment in a suit filed by a firm, Paudemic International Limited, and its Managing Director, Abraham Olorunda against the Registered Trustees Living Faith Church Worldwide, over alleged N29,532,638,60 unpaid contract sum.

Justice A A Shobayo fixed the date after parties in the matter, which included the founder of the Living Faith Church, Bishop David Oyedepo, and Covenant Microfinance Bank Limited, adopted their final written addresses.

Apart from the unpaid contract sum, the claimants in suit number HCT/429/2020 are also demanding an interest of 21 per cent per annum from October 2019 to judgment and, after that, at 10 per cent per annum from judgment until final liquidation of the judgment sum.

N4.8bn Fraud: Dozzy Oil & Gas Accuses Ibeto Of Falsehood

They also demand N2 million as general damages against the first and second defendants and N1 million as their solicitor’s fee.

The Claimants, in their statement of Claim, alleged that they were awarded a contract for the constrictor of a cylindrical steel tank at Covenant University Ota through a letter dated 20th October 2008 in the sum of N14,108,000.00

The Claimants averred that they were not mobilised but approached Covenant Microfinance Bank Limited for an Advance Payment Guarantee to commence execution of the contract.

They also claimed that a cheque of
N10,581,000.00 was given to the Claimants by the first and second Defendants, and the cheque was returned upon presentation by the Claimants on two occasions.

The claimants stated that the bank turned the advance payment guarantee into a loan and started charging interest and that when they wrote to the first and second Defendants in 2009 to complain about the returned cheque, they got no response.

However, in their statement of defence, the first and second Defendants stated that the Claimant failed and refused to comply with the fundamental terms of the agreement.

They also argued that from the deposition of the Claimant’s witness and his oral evidence, the Claimant has not proved his case as required by law and is not entitled to judgment in this suit

The bank, in its defence, stated that it was not aware or informed about the modalities of awarding contracts by the first and second defendants and was not involved in the scrutiny or supervision of completed projects.

While adopting his client’s written address, the claimants’ lawyer, A I Bashir, identified two issues for determination: whether the claimants are entitled to the sum
claimed and whether the statute of limitation has caught the suit.

He urged the court to do justice to the claimant’sants case and not sacrifice justice on the altar of technicalities, stating that the defence of the first and second defendants is hinged on a mere technicality, which should not allowed to stand.

He also argued that since the claimants had established that there were contractual relationships between them and the first and second Defendants and
that they have performed their obligations under the contract
relationship, they are therefore entitled to the sum claimed to be the
paid balance of the contract sum of money from the various contracts awarded to the claimants.

He, therefore, submitted that the Statute of Limitation cannot be invoked by the first and second Defendants, considering the circumstances surrounding the contract awarded to the claimants.