CORAM
ONYEAMA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
AJEGBO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
EJIDIKE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONVERSION, DAMAGES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The trial court had awarded specific and general damages to the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants appellants appealed to the court to have it set aside.
HELD
The court held that the award of general damages cannot be upheld and is set aside.
ISSUES
Whether the trial court was right in awarding general damages to the plaintiff/respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL DAMAGES
“General damages are usually referred to by way of contract with special damages, and as is pointed out in Mayne and McGregor on Damages, 12th edition, paragraphs 912, these terms are capable of bearing a number of different meanings. They may refer to questions of liability, or of proof, or of pleading, and items of damage may be regarded as special for the purpose of pleading though general for the purpose of liability. It is therefore important to be sure in what sense either term is used in any particular context.”- BRETT, J.S.C
ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION
“In an action for conversion it is well settled that the normal measure of damages is the market value of the goods convened, though in certain cases, of which this is not one, the plaintiff may be able to recover damages for consequential losses, as long as damage is not too remote.”- BRETT, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Onaga & Ors v. Micho & Co. [1961] All N.L.R. 324,
2. Rookes v. Barnard [1964] 2 W.L.R. 26