ALHAJI ABDULKARIM & ANOR v. DAHIRU SHEHU

CORAM

PARTIES

ALHAJI ABDULKARIM

DAHIRU SHEHU

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent commenced the action before the High Court of Justice, Yobe State by way of a specially endorsed Writ of summons wherein he sought for the sum of N22, 833, 000.00 as proceeds of the use of the trailer for 2 years 6 months, damages and cost of litigation. In their defense, the Appellants denied the claims in their statement of defence and also counter claimed against the Respondent. At the close of trial, the trial Court entered Judgement in favour of the Respondent, awarding him the sum of N1, 580, 000.00 (One Million Five Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) as special damages and N1, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira) as general damages. Dissatisfied by this award, the Appellants filed an appeal against the decision, wherein they complained on three (3) Grounds.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent discharged the burden of proof required in law with regards to special damages in relation to the money so awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent by the trial Court.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

AWARD OF SPECIAL DAMAGES – RATIONALE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF PROOF IN THE AWARD OF SPECIAL DAMAGES

“However, more importantly is that fact that in a claim such as this for special damages, the Plaintiff must prove every head of claim by credible evidence. The law is settled that special damages are such that the law will not presume or infer from the nature of the act complained of. This is because they do not flow or follow in the ordinary course of events. They are special and exceptional in their character. Hence they must be specially pleaded with relevant particulars and thereafter, strictly proved by credible evidence. Thus, the law is that whoever wants special damages must endeavour to prove it strictly and specifically. There must be evidence in Court to establish that he suffered such damages as he claimed.
The rationale behind this is that special damages are only awarded where there is credible evidence based on calculations established by a preponderance of evidence. Without such proof, special damages cannot be awarded. Thus, where a claimant fails to lead credible evidence in proof of special damages, the Defendant will be absolved from adducing evidence challenging the hollow and porous evidence by the Claimant; and the Court will be justified in refusing to award the special damages claimed in such a circumstance – Ibrahim V Obaje (2017) LPELR-43749(SC) 10, A-D, per Ogunbiyi, JSC; UBN Plc V Ajabule (2011) LPELR-8239(SC) 35-36, F-B, per Adekeye, JSC; Young V Chevron Nig. Ltd (2013) LPELR-22126(CA) 44, A-D; Intels (Nig) Ltd V Bassey (2011) LPELR-4326(CA)’. –

AWARD OF DAMAGES – DUTY OF THE COURT IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES ARISING FROM A BREACH OF CONTRACT

“In addition, when a Court is considering damages arising from a breach of contract, as in this case, there is no room for the award of damages which are merely speculative or sentimental, unless they are specifically provided for by the express terms of the contract. Also, in awarding damages in such a claim, the Court must be careful not to compensate a party twice for the same wrong – Agu V General Oil Ltd (2015) LPELR-24613(SC) 21, C-D, per Okoro, JSC. –

DETINUE – WHAT CONSTITUTES LIABILITY IN DETINUE AND PROOF OF SAME?

“In respect of the award of damages in detinue ostensibly for the detention of the trailer head in the sum of tune of N1, 000, 00.00, the learned trial Judge hinged it on the admission of the 1st Appellant (as DW3) in his evidence that the vehicle was subsequently parked in a Garage, simpliciter. However, the gist of liability in detinue is the wrongful detention of the plaintiff’s chattel by the defendant after the plaintiff has made an express demand for its return. Without proof of wrongful detention on the part of the defendant, a claim of detinue cannot arise. A detention is not wrongful unless the defendant’s possession is adverse. Accordingly, for an action in detinue to succeed, the defendant must have shown a definite intention to keep the chattel in defiance of the plaintiff’s rightful claim thereto. This is usually manifested by proving a demand by the plaintiff and a refusal by the defendant to return or deliver the chattel to the plaintiff. Thus, as the Supreme Court held in the case of Julius Berger Ltd V Omogui (2001) 6 SCNJ 214, 229 per Uwaifo, JSC:
“Detinue is a continuing cause of action which accrues at the date of the wrongful refusal to deliver up the goods and this continues until delivery up of the goods or judgement in the action for detinue. The action is in the nature of an action in rem which the plaintiff may sue (1) for the value of the chattel as assessed and also for damages for its detention, or (2) for the return of the chattel or recovery of its value as assessed and also damages for its detention, or (3) for the return of the chattel and damages for its detention.”
See also Aminu Ishola Inv. Ltd V AfriBank Nig Ltd (2013) LPELR-20624(SC) 20-22, F-A, per Allagoa, JSC; FMGC Distribution Ltd V Boniface (2019) LPELR-47652(CA); J.E. Oshevire Ltd V Tripoli Motors (1997) LPELR-1584(SC) 41, A-E, per Iguh, JSC; Kosile V Folarin (1989) LPELR-1705(SC)”. –