ELIJAH OLADEJI KOSILE VS AMUBA OLANIYI FOLARIN - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ELIJAH OLADEJI KOSILE VS AMUBA OLANIYI FOLARIN

JAMES A. AMIZU V DR. BENJAMIN U. NZERIBE
July 17, 2025
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & 2 ORS VS J. O. LAOYE
July 17, 2025
JAMES A. AMIZU V DR. BENJAMIN U. NZERIBE
July 17, 2025
FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & 2 ORS VS J. O. LAOYE
July 17, 2025
Show all

ELIJAH OLADEJI KOSILE VS AMUBA OLANIYI FOLARIN

Legalpedia Citation: (1989-04) Legalpedia 86769 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Lagos

Fri Apr 21, 1989

Suit Number: S.C. 35/1985

CORAM


OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ELIJAH OLADEJI KOSILE

APPELLANTS 


AMUBA OLANIYI FOLARIN

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


APPEAL- TORT – DETINUE – SPECIAL DAMAGES

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant seized possession of the respondent’s vehicle under a sales agreement and refused to return same.

 


HELD


The court held that the respondent was entitled to the return of the vehicle or its monetary value and damages for loss of earnings till the date of the judgment.

 


ISSUES


As the vehicle was not an irreplaceable article, should the Court of Appeal not have treated it as a constructive total loss and award its value at the date of seizure (i.e. N2,400.00) as the measure of damages?

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


THE BASIS OF AWARD OF DAMAGES IN DETINUE


In an action for detinue the gist of the action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff’s chattel, which he has an immediate right to possess, after the plaintiff has demanded its return. So, a successful plaintiff is entitled to an order of specific restitution of the chattel, or, in default, its value, AND also damages for its detention up to the date of judgment- Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C.

 


SPECIAL DAMAGES :HOW ESTABLISHED


Proof of special damage is not radically different from the general method of proof in civil cases. It is equally proved on a balance of probability. Where the plaintiff pleads the special damage with particularity and gives some evidence of it and the defendant does not challenge or contradict the evidence given, he has discharged, his onus of proof and, unless the evidence is of such a quality that no reasonable tribunal can accept it, it ought to be accepted – Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C.

 


CASES CITED


1. S.O. Nwabuoku v. P.N. Ottih (1961) 1 All NLR. 487

2. Rosenthal v. Alderton & Sons Ltd. (1946) K.B.374, C.A.

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Not Available

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.