CORAM

---

BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

TOBI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

BONIFACE ANYIKA & CO, LAGOS NIGERIA LTD APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff /appellant and the defendant /respondent had a business relationship which was the clearing of goods. The appellant was the owner of the goods. The case of the appellant was that it imported 400 surgical orthopedic chairs into the country and employed the respondent to clear the goods. The respondent did not deliver the goods as agreed. Upon demand for the goods, the respondent concocted a story that the goods were seized by customs officials. The case of the respondent was different. Upon examination by the Board of Customs and Excise, the goods were found to be ordinary chairs, which are prohibited. Customs Officials seized the goods and auctioned them to Messrs Nnawo Enterprises. The appellant, though aware of the sale of the goods by customs officials, filed an action. The appellant sued the respondent for damages and conversion, or a return of 400 units of orthopaedic surgical chairs converted by the Defendants as well as the sum of N12,500.00 paid for clearing goods. At the trial, some of the respondents originally sued by the appellant had their names struck out of suit. The learned trial Judge gave judgment to the appellant. He found the defendant liable in conversion. The appeal of the respondent to the Court of Appeal was upheld. Judgment against the respondent was set aside and the claim dismissed. It was against that decision that the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the appeal is competent in view of the fact that the grounds of appeal are grounds of mixed law and fact and no leave was sought by the Plaintiff/Appellant.

Whether the Appellant pleaded and established facts upon which the Defendant/Respondent can be found liable for the tort of conversion.

Whether there was any evidence or inference of collusion between the Defendant/Respondent and Board of Customs and Excise in relation to the Plaintiff/Appellant’s forfeited cargo with regard to Exhibit P4 – P4J.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

---

“The law is elementary that parties are bound by their pleadings and facts not pleaded go to no issue.” Per NIKI TOBI, JSC

---

A CAUSE OF ACTION IN CONVERSION

---

“A cause of action in conversion is based on an unequivocal act of ownership by a defendant of goods of the plaintiff without any authority or right in that behalf.” Per NIKI TOBI, JSC

---

TORT OF CONVERSION

---

“Conversion is an act of willful interference, without lawful justification with any chattel in a manner inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of that chattel. The tort of conversion is committed where one, without lawful justification, takes a chattel out of the possession of another, with intention of exercising a permanent or temporary dominion over it, because the owner is entitled to the use of his property at all times. The usual method of proving that a detention is adverse is to show that the plaintiff demanded the delivery of the chattel, and that the defendant refused or neglected to comply with the demand.” Per NIKI TOBI, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

Adejumo V. Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417
Awoyegbe v.Ogbeide (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 695
Aguocha V. Aguocha (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 37) 566
Akeredolu V. Akinremi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 164
Anyanwu V. Iwuchukwu (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 692) 721.
Ojini V. Ogo Oluwa Motors Nigeria Ltd. (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 534) 353

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None.

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT