22. PW4’s testimony continued that he was contacted when the payment of
the contract sum became a problem; subsequently he found out that Shell
had paid the second defendant. He averred that with some pressure the
second defendant paid about 200 Million Naira out of a total of 500 Million
Naira. Subsequent cheques issued by the second defendant were
dishonoured. Eventually an agreement was entered into between the parties
for the payment of the outstanding sum. PW4 went on to say that he was
there when the agreement was signed by the parties and identified a copy
thereof (Exhibit Al). He concluded his evidence by saying that the plaintiff
instituted this action when second defendant could not pay the outstanding
sum as per the agreement (Exhibit A1) the parties entered into.
23. It is noteworthy that learned counsel to the defendant was not in Court
when PW1 gave his testimony despite the fact that defendants had been duly
served with the hearing notice. Mr. Patrice Akwara holding brief for counsel
to the defendants, Mr. E. D. Onyeke was in Court when the other three
plaintiff witnesses, PW2, PW3
and PW4 testified. When learned counsel to
the defendants was asked to cross examine the witnesses, he intimated to the
Court that he was not in the position to do so.
24. The defendants changed their counsel, Mr. Enyinnaya Uwaezuoke
replacing Mr. E.D. Onyeke. Mr. Uwaezuoke appeared in Court on the 27" of
September 2010 and asked for an adjournment to enable him put his house
in order and to cross examine plaintiffs witnesses. Learned Counsel to the
plaintiff objected to this request for adjournment stating the various
adjournments that had been given at the instance of the defendants. The
Court obliged the defence counsel’s request for adjournment, ruling that it
was the final adjournment in this suit and that plaintiff should make
available its witnesses for cross examination at the expense of defendants.
Plaintiff made available its witnesses for cross-examination at its own
expense despite the Court’s ruling to the effect that the defendants should
bear such expense. However, defendants failed to appear in Court on the
adjourned date without any excuse communicated to the Court. In the
circumstances, the Court had no option but to bring proceedings to a close