CHIEF OTONYESEIGHA OLOLO V NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO LTD - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

CHIEF OTONYESEIGHA OLOLO V NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO LTD

JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC VS. R.I. OMOGUI
June 24, 2025
OGUNKUNLE V. ETERNAL SACRED ORDER OF C AND S
June 24, 2025
JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC VS. R.I. OMOGUI
June 24, 2025
OGUNKUNLE V. ETERNAL SACRED ORDER OF C AND S
June 24, 2025
Show all

CHIEF OTONYESEIGHA OLOLO V NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO LTD

Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 11111

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 22, 2001

Suit Number: SC.82/1996

CORAM


ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OKAY ACHIKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.


PARTIES


CHIEF OTONYESEIGHA OLOLO APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant sued the defendants/respondents at the Federal High Court for damages and special for his shipwreck caused by the negligence of the defendants. The 2nd defendant appealed against same and the plaintiff was held contributorily negligent. It has against this judgment that he has not appealed to the Supreme Court.


HELD


APPEAL DISMISSED


ISSUES


1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law by contradicting itself when it held that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent despite its earlier upholding in the same judgment of the finding of fact by the court below that the collision was caused by the negligence of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent herein.2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in law to have considered and found upon a Defence of Contributory Negligence which was neither specifically pleaded nor canvassed by the parties in the High Court but raised for the first time in by the Court of Appeal and without its leave.3. Whether the Court of Appeal can properly set aside the award of damages of the loss of two outboard engines by the High Court when it had earlier on in the judgment constructively upheld the same award by rejecting the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s contention in relation to the very same award as misconceived.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


DAMAGES MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED


“….an item of special damages the law requires that it must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved as well” {I.L. KUTIGI, JSC.}


NEGLIGENCE


“Negligence is a question of fact, not law; and each case must be decided in the light of its own particular facts.”


CASES CITED


1. Fookes v. Slaytor (1978) 1 W.L.R. 1293.2. Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd (1953) A.C.663.3. Davies v. Swan Motor Co. (SWANSEA) Ltd (1949) 2 K.B.2914. Baker v. Longhurst & Sons Ltd (1933) 2 K.B.461.5. Gibby v. E. Grinstead Gas and Water Co. (1944) 1 All E.R.358).6. Kalla v. Jarmakani Transport Ltd (1961) All N.L.R. 747)


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945.2. The Marine Conventions Act, 1911


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.