FEDERAL COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING V LABABEDI & ORS
August 6, 2025PATRICK EFE & 6 ORS V. THE STATE
August 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 51158
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 19, 1976
Suit Number: SC. 266/1974
CORAM
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF J.K. ODUMOSU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant gave for of his documents to the respondents for safe keeping but the respondents mistook it for an equitable mortgage. When the appellant requested for the documents to transact business, the respondent refused to give him. He sued for damages in detinue for the loss of gain he would have had.
HELD
The court held that the evidence of the appellant while enough to make award in respect of general damages, cannot be regarded as evidence in support of special damages.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the claim for damages was merely speculative because the evidence before him fell far short of establishing special damages
RATIONES DECIDENDI
In those cases, therefore where the goods, the subject-matter of the action for detinue have not (as such) been profit-earning, it is extremely difficult to assess the damages to the plaintiff. However the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss arising from his inability to make use of the specific goods and this can be recovered under either head of damages-general or specific. Where however the plaintiff particularises items of special damage, then he must establish the same by evidence. Special damages, therefore, consists of items of loss which have to be particularised or specified in the plaintiffs pleadings in order that he may give evidence thereon and recover thereon. PER IDIGBE JSC
MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN DETINUE
“The measure of damages for detention of goods (i.e in detinue) is peculiar and the normal measure is usually-
The market value of the goods where delivery of the specific goods detained has not been ordered.
Even in the case where an order for the return of the goods has been made, a sum of money representing the normal loss through the detention of the goods and this (when applicable) quite often is the market rate at which the goods could have been hired during the period of detention.
CASES CITED
OSHINJINRIN&ORS V. ALHAJI ELIAS & ORS (1970) 1 ALL NLR 153
ANDERSON V. PASSMAN, GENTS &ORS (1835) 7 C&P 193
SOMERVELL & ROMER L.J IN THE MEDIANNA (1900) AC 113
PREHN V. ROYAL BANK OF LIVERPOOL (1870) LR 5 EXCH 92
SUSEQUEHANNA (1925) AC 655
ADEL BOSHALLI V. ALLIED COMMERCIAL EXPORTERS LTD (1961) 1 ALL NLR
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
