From the respondent’s statement of claim, at pages 3 – 5 of the record, particularly paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and his evidence in chief, it is clear that there was an offer made by the appellant to the respondent to paint the appellant’s residence at Mbiambong, Etoi, Uyo, the power chapel church offices and the church fence at No. 98 NwanibaRoad, Uyo. The parties discussed the colour to be used and agreed on the text cote paint manufactured by the respondent.

The parties discussed the cost and arrived at the following:

1.N250,000.00 for the painting of the residence of the appellant at Mbiabong, Etoi, Uyoand. N150,000.00 for painting of the Power Chapel Church International Offices and Fence, bringing the total sum to N400,000. The appellant himself did not’ deny that there was an agreement. The only points of disagreement are: 1.That the contract sum was N150,000 for the church offices and fence; That the appellant residence at Mbiabong, Etoi, Uyo was to be painted free of charge; That the type of paint agreed upon was rubberized and not text cote.

The learned trial Judge satisfactorily resolved the above issues in his judgment at pages 88 – 93 of the record. In my view, the evidence adduced by the appellant did not support his defence to the action that the total contract sum was N 150,000. DW1 at page 57, lines 58 under cross-examination as follows: Q:In all, how much did you pay the respondent? A: N240,000. I can’l remember the amount.

Also at page 57, lines 20 – 26, DW1 under cross-examination stated as follows: Q: You told the court that the defendant paid the plaintiff about N230,000 to N240,000, was the money paid receipted for? A. Ths A Q If you see the receipt can you identify it? A Yes.

The evidence ofDW1 quoted above is at variance with the averments pleaded by the appellant under paragraphs 4, 5, 6,7 and 8 of the statement of defence at pages 16 – 17 of the record. It is the law that evidence which B is at variance with the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded and/or expunged from the record by the court: Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 930) 362 at 367 and 369; Obaloja v. Efikan (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 553) 320; Thompson v. Arowolo (2003) FWLR (Pt. 164) 315, (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 163 and Ndoro v. Pianwii (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. C 812) 137.

Moreover, in exhibit 3, which is the receipt tendered through the respondent, under cross-examination, at page 32 of the record, it is clearly and boldly written that the payment made therein, that is, the sum of NI40,000. is part payment of the total contract sum ofN400,000. Therefore, D by simple arithmetic, if the sum of N 140,000 is deducted from the total contract sum ofN400,000, the unpaid balance is N260,000.00. This is what the trial Judge did at page 92 of the record. The trial Judge rejected

the evidence of the respondent that he was paid the sum of N45,000.00 in two installments of N15,000 and N30,000. and accepted exhibit 3 in preference to the oral testimony of the respondent. Documentary evidence is usually a very reliable piece of evidence because of its permanency: Section 132 of the Evidence Act and Adeoti v. Ayorinde F (2001) 6 NWLR(Pt. 709) 336; Jackv. Whyte (2001) FWLR(Pt. 43) 247, (200 1) 6 NWLR (Pt. 706) 266.

Documentary evidence is a veritable aid for assessing oral testimony: Whyte v. Jack (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 407 and u.N.I.C v. u.c.I.c. Ltd (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 17. In Jinadu v. Esurombi-Aro(2005) l4NWLR(Pt. 944) 142, this court held at page 192 thus: G; Where there is oral and documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger with which to asses oral testimony.”

The trial Judge was perfectly right to use exhibit 3 to resolve the issue of the total contract sum and the unpaid balance.

On the other terms of the contract, the evidence of the respondent is to the effect that he agreed to paint the appellant’s residence at Mbiabong, Etoi, Uyo for N250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand naira) and the

A church offices and fence at the Power Chapel International Church at No. 98, Nwaniba Road, Uyo for N 150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand) making a total ofN400,OOO.OO (four hundred thousand naira). The appellant alleged that his residence was to be painted for free in order to advertise the respondent’s product. From the evidence adduced at the trial, the case

B of the respondent was established and proved.

The witnesses of the appellant, DW1 and DW2 admitted clearly that they were not parties to the contract agreement and they were not present when the agreement was made between the parties. At pages, 56 lines 24 – 26. DWl stated as follows:

Under cross-examination

C Q: What was the agreed cost for painting both the church and the building at pastor’s house?

A: N250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand naira).

That piece of evidence contradicts the facts pleaded by the appellant in paragraph 7 of his statement of defence which is at page 17 of the D record, therefore,