[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-275906-105":53,"doc-detail-275906-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","abdulazeez-sheikh-umar-abubakar-ismail-rumah-judgment-cv65092023","ABDULAZEEZ SHEIKH UMAR - ABUBAKAR ISMAIL RUMAH - JUDGMENT (CV/6509/2023)","","Judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, held at Maitama Abuja, delivered by Hon. Justice M.A. Nasir in Suit No. CV/6509/2023 under the undefended list procedure. The claimant advanced N33,000,000 to the defendant for investment in a Bureau De Change business and later received only N5,000,000, leaving a balance of N28,000,000. The defendant filed a notice of intention to defend, but a joinder motion was treated as abandoned. The court assessed whether the defendant disclosed a prima facie defence on the merit, applying Order 35 of the Rules of Court 2018 and cited relevant precedents.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/abdulazeez-sheikh-umar-abubakar-ismail-rumah-judgment-cv65092023/275906/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/abdulazeez-sheikh-umar-abubakar-ismail-rumah-judgment-cv65092023/275906.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Aria Callaghan","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What was the claimant’s main claim against the defendant?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The claimant sued under the undefended list procedure for N28 million, described as the balance of N33 million borrowed and advanced to the defendant, which was only partially refunded.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How much did the claimant advance and how much was refunded?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The claimant advanced N33,000,000 in April 2018 and received N5,000,000 after demand, leaving N28,000,000 unpaid.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What legal issue did the court determine before deciding on leave to defend?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"The court determined whether the defendant disclosed a defence on the merit to justify granting leave to defend and transferring the suit from the undefended list to the ordinary cause list.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},275906,1790150348,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":20,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":47},962084926284,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA  \nDATE: 17TH OF APRIL, 2024  \nBEFORE: HON. JUSTICE M.A. NASIR  \nCOURT NO: 5  \nSUIT NO: CV/6509/2023  \nBETWEEN  \nABDULAZEEZ SHEIKH UMAR -----CLAIMANT  \nAND  \nABUBAKAR ISMAIL RUMAH -----DEFENDANT  \nJUDGMENT  \nThe claimant instituted this action against the defendant on the 16/6/2023 under the undefended list procedure. The claimant is praying the Court for the sum of N28 Million being balance of the sum of N33 Million borrowed to the defendant.  \nThe claimant sometime in April, 2018 advanced the sum of N33 Million to the defendant to further invest in his Bureau De Change business on the condition that it will be refunded to him when needed. In November, 2022, the claimant demanded for the refund but the demands were to no avail. The claimant then instructed his solicitor to serve  \nthe defendant with demand notice. Upon receipt of the demand notice, the defendant made a payment of N5 Million leaving a balance of N28 Million. The defendant’s solicitor also wrote a letter to the claimant acknowledging indebtedness and pleading for time to make the refund. The claimant has averred that the defendant has no defence to the suit.  \nOrder 35 of the Rules of Court 2018 has made provisions guiding commencement and determination of matters commenced under the undefended list procedure. Rule 3(1) of the Order provides:  \n“where a party served with the Writ delivers to registrar, before 5 days to the day fixed for hearing, a notice in writing that he intends to defend the suit, together with an affidavit disclosing a defence on the merit, the Court may give him leave to defend upon such terms as the Court may think just.”  \nNow the defendant herein was served with the Writ of Summons marked ‘undefended’ on the 12/7/2023 with the Return date being 16/11/2023 . The defendant filed the Notice of Intention to Defend on the 17/10/2023 together with a motion seeking to join another party to the suit. It is pertinent to state that the defendant was not in Court on the date for hearing despite the service of hearing notice on his counsel A. U. Dobi Esq. The motion seeking for joinder of another party filed by the defendant having not been moved is therefore deemed abandoned and it is hereby discountenanced.  \nIn the determination of the suit, this Court will have recourse to the Notice of Intention to Defend wherein the defendant admitted refunding the sum of N5,000,000 .00 (Five Million Naira) to the claimant. And that the sum of N170,000,000 .00 (One Hundred and Seventy Million) together with the amount claimed had been disbursed to a third party, one Maxwell Odum Chizi on the claimants  \ninstruction. That the (defendant) can only refund the sum borrowed from the claimant when the third party pays back the debt.  \nLearned counsel to the claimant Amos Menina Esq while adopting the written address submitted that the essence of undefended list procedure is to quicken access to justice and to discourage frivolous defence by the defendant. That the defendant in this instance has no defence on the merit. He urged the Court to enter judgment for the claimant. He made reference to the following:  \n􀂾 Maja vs. Samouris (2002) LPELR – 1824 (SC)  \n􀂾 Ikpong vs. Udobong (2007) 2 NWLR (part 1017) 184 at 190  \n􀂾 Ataguda & Co. vs. Gura (Nig) Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (part  \n927) 429  \n􀂾 Nepa vs. Aminu Ibrahim & Co. (2018) 12 NWLR (part 163) 262  \n􀂾 F. M. F Ltd vs. River State Poly Bori (2005) 9 NWLR (part 930) 257 at 260.  \n􀂾 Okoli vs. Morecab Finance (Nig) Ltd (2007) 14 NWLR (part 1053) 37 at 44.  \nThe purpose of the procedure under the undefended list is to enable the plaintiff obtain Summary Judgment without trial where his case is patently clear and unassailable. See Fadopo vs. Lemminkainen & Ors. (1986)1 NWLR (Part 15) page 220, Din vs. Olaose (2014)16 NWLR (Part 1432) 124 at 128.  \nThe cardinal issue for determination in this matter is whether or not the defendant has disclosed a defence o","cbCaiifhC8t49x7D","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiifhC8t49x7D","pdf",451111,"English","# Judgment\n## Case background and claims\n## Procedure under the undefended list\n## Notice of intention to defend and joinder motion\n## Issues for determination and legal standards","[{\"question\":\"What was the claimant’s main claim against the defendant?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant sued under the undefended list procedure for N28 million, described as the balance of N33 million borrowed and advanced to the defendant, which was only partially refunded.\"},{\"question\":\"How much did the claimant advance and how much was refunded?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant advanced N33,000,000 in April 2018 and received N5,000,000 after demand, leaving N28,000,000 unpaid.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal issue did the court determine before deciding on leave to defend?\",\"answer\":\"The court determined whether the defendant disclosed a defence on the merit to justify granting leave to defend and transferring the suit from the undefended list to the ordinary cause list.\"}]","ABDULAZEEZ SHEIKH UMAR - ABUBAKAR ISMAIL RUMAH - JUDGMENT (CV/6509/2023) | PDF",1789490190]