CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abubakar Sadiq Umar -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
1. AICE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
2. ANTHONY IKECHUKWU ELOCHUKWU
APPELLANTS
FIDELITY BANK PLC
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
BANKING LAW, DAMAGES, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACT, COMMERCIAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Anambra State, Nnewi Judicial Division, which awarded nominal damages of N150,000 against the Respondent for loss of the 2nd Appellant’s original title deeds that were surrendered as collateral for a loan granted to the 1st Appellant. The Appellants had originally claimed N750 million as aggravated/exemplary damages for wrongful seizure of title documents, an order compelling return of the original title deeds, and N250 million for wrongful debiting and excessive charges.
The trial court awarded nominal damages and ordered the Respondent to procure Certified True Copies (CTCs) of the title documents at its own expense. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the nominal damages awarded, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their appeal. They further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts awarding nominal damages of N150,000.
3. The Court held that the Appellants failed to prove entitlement to aggravated damages.
4. The order for procurement of Certified True Copies was appropriate as courts cannot make orders in vain.
5. Costs of N1,000,000 were awarded against the Appellants.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in affirming the trial court’s decision not to award aggravated damages against the Respondent.?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in upholding the trial court’s order for the Respondent to procure Certified True Copies of the original title deed when this was not a relief claimed by any party.?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in upholding the decision that Appellants were not entitled to damages for wrongful debiting and excessive charges on their account.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF AGGRAVATED DAMAGES:
“Clearly, aggravated damages are there to compensate the plaintiff for the wrong done to him but, there is a catch to such an award… the conduct of the Respondent, in this case, has to be shown to have been deliberately high handed, insolent, vindictive and a total disregard of the Appellants’ rights.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
PROOF OF SPECIAL DAMAGES – REQUIREMENT:
“The Appellants ought to have led evidence to show or prove the loss or damages they suffered to enable the Court to see the special damage suffered by the Appellants and would then award the aggravated damages due to the Appellants.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
STATUS OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES:
“It is the law that a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a document is as good as the original and is presumed under the Evidence Act to be regular until the contrary is proved.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT ORDERS:
“It is the law that a Court cannot make an unenforceable order… if the trial Court had made the expected order of the Appellants as argued, for the Respondent to return the original title documents to the parties, it would have been an order in futility.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
PURPOSE OF NOMINAL DAMAGES:
“Nominal damages are never awarded as a way of over compensating a party but, rather to assuage the other party following a wrong by another.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
COURT’S DISCRETION IN GRANTING ALTERNATIVE RELIEF:
“The order for the procurement of CTCs was therefore the equitable and just order to make in the circumstances and the learned trial Judge ought to be commended for making same.” – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
AWARD OF DAMAGES – PROOF OF LOSS:
“The yardstick for the award of damages is the consideration of the inconvenience suffered by a party… where the Appellants have envisaged a future loss of business since none was proved.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS:
“It is settled law that where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings or decisions, they should not be disturbed.” – Per Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC
QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – BASIS FOR AWARD:
“Nominal damages’ is a technical term for the damages awarded by a Court in favour of a Plaintiff who, although has been able to prove that his right was breached, he is unable to point to any particular injury, damage or loss suffered.”- Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
CONDITIONS FOR INTERFERING WITH DAMAGES AWARD:
“There is no reason to interfere with the decision of the two lower Courts in the award of the nominal damages since there is no evidence: 1. That the trial Court acted upon the wrong principle of law, or 2. That the amount awarded by the trial Court is too high or too low; 3. That the amount was erroneous and unreasonably estimated.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN LITIGATION:
“Rule 14(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners enjoins a lawyer to act in a manner consistent with the best Interest of the client. The order being disputed was made in the best interest of the counsel’s clients.”– Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
WRONGFUL DEBITS – ENTITLEMENT TO DAMAGES:
“The alleged wrongful debiting had been reversed back into the Appellants account. The Appellants were not entitled to any damages on the basis of the reversed wrongful debiting of the account.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JSC
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS:
“Quantum of damages, like any other issue in our civil procedure, is a matter of evidence, where one gives no evidence that can help in the assessment of damages, then one is normally entitled to nominal damages.” – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act
2. Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023
3. Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007