The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division has dismissed the appeal by AIICO Insurance Plc challenging the judgement of Justice Maryam Anenih of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, which ordered the Insurance Company to pay the sum of N1,226,000.00, being the premium paid for the life insurance policy by a policy holder, Gboyega Bello.
The Appellate Court in its lead judgement delivered by Justice Peter Chudi Obiorah, held that there was no merit in the appeal, adding that “It is bound to fail. It has failed”.
Other members of the panel, Justice Joseph Olubumi Oyewole (Presiding) and Justice Okon Abang unanimously aligned with the lead Judgement.
The respondent, Bello had in February 2007, executed a 15-year-life insurance Policy with AIICO Insurance Plc in its Abuja Office with the policy No 12025277.
For three years, he paid premiums in the sum of N305,000.00 on 29 February, 2007, N307,000.00 on 28 February, 2008, N307,000.00 on 18 November, 2008 and N307,000.00 on 22 October, 2009, all amounting to a total of N1,226,000.00.
However while surrendering the policy, he had, in three consecutive letters, requested AIICO Insurance Plc for a refund to which the company replied to once, stating that indeed Bello was indebted to AIICO Insurance Plc on an outstanding premium loan of N1,326,389.52 it secured on his behalf to fund the policy at the time he did not pay his premium.
However, Bello’s consent was never sought by AIICO Insurance Plc to secure a loan on his behalf.
Consequently, Bello through his lawyer, Samuel Ogala filed Suit No. CV/225/20212 against AIICO Insurance Plc claiming the sum of N1,226,000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand Naira) only being the premium paid for the life insurance policy he executed with the company.
He also prayed the court for interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the judgment sum until judgment is executed.
In her judgement deliver on February 13, 20014 in Abuja, Justice Anenih held that under the policy, Bello has the right to surrendering the said policy by notifying AIICO Insurance Plc in writing and the company was duty bound to refund his money.
The court noted that Bello had only failed to pay his premium for 2010 and as such that could not amount to the sum claimed by AIICO Insurance Plc as loan secured on behalf of the plaintiff.
Justice Anenih said that Bello has, by the evidence before her, fulfilled the burden placed on him by law, adding that AIICO Insurance Plc has failed to file before the court any Notice of Intention to Defend or affidavit of Defence despite service of the process on it.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, AIICO in Appeal No: CA/A/577/2014 file by it lawyer, Ademola Adewoye urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgement of the lower court.
In its judgement, the appellate court noted that the suit was brought under undefended list, adding that an undefended list procedure is a special procedure consciously designed to fast-track cases of liquidated money demand where too much controversial facts are not expected to be in dispute
The court added that it should constantly be kept in view that the Purpose of the Undefended List procedure is to enable a plaintiff obtain quick judgment in clear Cases where the defendant has no defence to the claim of debt or liquidated sum by the plaintiff.
Justice Peter Chudi Obiorah in his lead judgement held “Did the appellant as defendant take this legal and wise step to file its notice of intention to defend with an affidavit? No!
“The appellant is bound to do what the rules of court expects it to do. Thereafter, nothing stops the appellant from filing any other process like notice of preliminary objection to challenge the competence of the suit. Such double approach by a defendant is simply being prudent, careful and pragmatic which is acting out of abundance of caution so that if the preliminary objection fails, there is something on the merit to enable the defendant to defend the suit.
“Where a defendant, like the appellant, chose to ignore the rules of court which placed a burden on him to file a notice of intention to defend the suit and affidavit but followed its own path of filing a notice of preliminary objection and fails in its bid to invalidate the suit, it cannot turn round to blame the court for not indulging it with an adjournment to put “our house in order’, whatever that vague and general statement means. This is because adjournment is a call for exercise of discretion of the court which must be exercised judicially and judiciously.
“It is important to note that at no place in the entire record of appeal did | see where the appellant’s counsel gave a reason for their failure to file the notice of intention to defend and affidavit for over one year after becoming aware of the suit and taking steps therein. As a matter of fact, on 1/8/2013 the trial court adjourned the case to 13/2/2014 for hearing of the preliminary objection and/or the hearing of the substantive suit.
“This particular adjournment was a clear notification to the appellant on the business of the court for 13/2/2014. Yet, despite this notice and the period of six (6) months gap between 1/8/2013 and 13/2/2014, the appellant did not utilize it to “put our house in order.
“In the the instant case, the appellant cannot be heard to blame the court for its own failure to file its notice of intention to defend the suit. The appellant had the opportunity but chose its own course. Where the appellant had the opportunity to present its case but was engaged in dilatory tactics and elects by its action not to take the opportunity provided by the rules of court to file its notice of intention to defend the suit, it cannot thereafter blame her adversary or accuse the court of denial of fair hearing.
“Rather than blame the trial court for the alleged denial of fair hearing to the appellant, I praise the learned trial judge for being alive to the hallowed duty to render justice to the parties fairly and keeping faith with the rules of court.
“It is my conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is bound to fail. It has failed and | so order. Consequently, I hereby dismiss the appeal”
In his review of the judgement, Justice Joseph Oyewole stated that he found no “justification to disturb the judgement of the lower court”, saying that he adopted the consequential order in the leading judgment.
Similarly, Justice Okon Abang, stated in his review of the leading judgment that he was in “agreement with the reasoning and conclusions made” by the justice and adopted it as his.
