Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
September 10, 2019 11:47 am
“In that regard nothing stopped a body corporate as the respondent to get the functions carried, out by a legal firm acting on its behalf which firm would in turn utilise whatever human agent it so wished. In doing so the requirement of the law is met. Also as a follow up is that any servant or agent of the company or the legal firm acting for the company would meet the requirement of testifying as to that service carried out by the company or firm. It is not necessary that it is only that person who carried out the function on behalf of the company that must testify. Not at all, as any official of the company well equipped with the transaction and or related documents would suffice to testify. See Anyaebsi v RT Briscore Nia. Ltd (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.59) 84; Kate Enterprises Ltd v Daewoo Nigeria (supra).”PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C, in
CHEMIRON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V STABILINI VISINONI LIMITED
2018] legalpedia SC. 545/2015
https://legalpediaonline.com/chemiron-international-limited-v-stabilini-visinoni-limited/
