MANAGING DIRECTOR MESSRS AFRICAN DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS EXCISE AND PREVENTIVE SERVICE (CEPS)

WOOD (MRS), CJ:

On the 19th of February, 1999, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant /respondents in respect of two consolidated suits numbered 1609/91 and 1720/92 respectively. These decisions were, on appeal, affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appellant has appealed to this court on the grounds that:

i. The Court of Appeal erred where it held that the Learned trial Court Judge was right in failing to adequately consider and give due weight to the fact that the goods the Plaintiff/Appellant was accused of failing to account for and pay duty in respect of remained at all material times in the custody and physical control of the Defendant/Respondent.

ii. The Court of Appeal, like the trial Judge erred in failing to adequately consider and give due weight to the legal effect of loss of the missing goods which in the Customs bonded warehouse controlled by men and the Defendant/Respondent estimated from Plaintiff/Appellant by the Defendant/Respondent.

iii. The Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law in upholding the holding of the learned trial Court that there was nothing from the facts and circumstance on record to show that the Plaintiff/Appellant signed the said agreement under coercion or under influence. The judgment was against the weight of the evidence on record.

iv. The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeals in both consolidated cases.

v. Further grounds will be filed upon receipt of a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Before tackling the substantive grounds of appeal I would like to make this observation. Although the appellant filed two separate claims, which were consolidated, the trial court gave two separate decisions. The court of appeal affirmed the two decisions. One would have thought the notice of appeal should have set out clearly and distinctly, the grounds of appeal in relation to each decision. Lumping the grounds of appeal together and requesting that the decisions of the two lower courts be set aside and “judgment entered for the plaintiff/appellant in respect of its claims in both consolidated suits”, does not meet the justice of this case. It is regrettable that the notice of appeal fails to disclose in clear terms which grounds relate to which decision. We are thus left to undertake this exercise ourselves, a task which must be based on the strict wording of the appeal grounds and nothing more, given that under rules 6 sub rules (4-8) of the Supreme Court, Rul