ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD. VS DR. BABATUNDE ADESANYA
July 15, 2025BABANG GOLOK V. MAMBOK DIYALPWAN
July 15, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1990-06) Legalpedia 81149 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Fri Jun 29, 1990
Suit Number: SC 54/1981
CORAM
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
KAZEEM, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ELIOCHIN (NIGERIA) LIMITED
R.G.H. ELCHAMI
MRS. N. R. ELCHAMI
APPELLANTS
VICTOR NGOZI MBADIWE (Substituted for Chief J. Green Mbadiwe
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal came from the Court of Appeal. The Respondents /plaintiffs before the High Court joined to claim a sum of N250,000.00. “as exemplary damages for trespass committed by the said defendant on the premises, goods and household effects. They also claimed an injunction. The Claim was finally settled in an amended statement of claim. The High Court of Lagos dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish before the Court the right to sue in trespass was bound to fail in that action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was dismissed on the ground that while the plaintiffs might, on the evidence be entitled to general damages if they had asked for it, they must fail on damages because they asked for exemplary damages only. The plaintiffs further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal were set aside.
ISSUES
1. The Court of Appeal erred in law in basing their decision on points not canvassed then at the hearing of the appeal and without giving the appellants or their counsel an opportunity of being heard on those points.
2. The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in omitting to enter judgment for the plaintiffs for injunction restraining the trespass complained of having regard to their own finding that defendant had committed trespass.
3. The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that on claim for exemplary damages they had no jurisdiction or discretion to award general damages.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
HOW CLAIM TO TRESPASS IS ESTABLISHED
“The law is settled that when a claim of trespass is established, i.e. facts establishing trespass to land or goods are proved and general damages are claimed, the court of trial proceeds to assess, quantify and award the appropriate amount. If special damages are not claimed in addition and proved strictly these will be awarded in addition. If special damages are not claimed or if claimed but are not proved strictly, they will not be awarded.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
RIGHT OF LANDLORD TO INVADE PREMISES
“It is not the law of this country that a landlord has unbridled right to invade premises in the lawful occupation of a tenant and cart his goods and belongings away even for safe keeping, more so when the intention of the landlord is to recover possession after refusal by the tenant to pay higher rent.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
SITUATIONS WHERE A LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE FOR TRESPASS
“Where the landlord brushes aside the necessity to obtain an order of court of possession and jettisons the rule of law, enters the premises and takes possession, he has invaded and committed an infraction of the rights of the tenant and renders himself liable in trespass.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
McPhail v. Persons Unknown (1973) 3 All E.R. 393 at p. 399
Dawodu v. Ijale (1946) 12 W.A. C.A. 12
Pan African Co. Ltd. v. National Insurance Corporation (Nig.) Ltd. (1982) 9 S. C. 1
Sale v. Nigerian Cotton Board (1985) 2 N. W. L. R. Pt 5 pg 17
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
