HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC VS ECO BANK NIGERIA LTD
April 10, 2025COMPACT MANIFOLD & ENERGY SERVICES LTD V PAZAN SERVICES NIGERIA LIMITED
April 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 55211
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT BENIN
Thu Jul 12, 2018
Suit Number: CA/B/460/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
HI-TECH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
PATRICK ONOME ONOMUABORIGHO
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This judgment is predicated on the appeal by Hi-Tech Construction Company Ltd., as Defendant against the judgment of High Court of Edo State sitting in Benin City in favour of the Respondent, Patrick Onome Onomuaborigho. The summary of the fact of the case as can be gleaned from the record of appeal is that the Respondent as Plaintiff and who had just completed his National Youth Service Corp programme in Kaduna and returned to Orerokpe his place of abode. He left Orerokpe on 22nd August 2010, for Osubi enroute, Warri in Delta State. He disembarks from the vehicle that took him from Orerokpe at old Osuji junction by Osubi express road. While on the right side of the road and at the junction, negotiating with a motorcyclist on the fare to be paid to take him to Osaremien motor park, Enerhen, Warri, a Hilux van with registration number Lagos XL 183 AKD driven by the driver of the Appellant rammed into him. As a result of the accident, his right hand was broken and his left wrist was fractured. His left leg was also shattered and severed above his knee from the rest of the body as a result of the impact by the Hilux van. He also sustained serious cuts and bruises all over his body. While in the hospital, his shattered and severed left leg was buried. He became unconscious and when he gained back his consciousness, he found himself at Lily clinic courtesy of the Appellant. He spent over one month in the said clinic. There in the clinic the Appellant claimed he expended not less than N2, 000,000.00 (Two million Naira) for the treatment of the Respondent. After his discharge from the said clinic, the Respondent approached the Appellant for compensation. The Managing Director of the Appellant offered N50, 000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) which did not go well with the Respondent. His solicitor wrote to the Appellant and consequent upon the letter by the solicitor, the Managing Director of the Appellant again offered N350, 000.00 (Three Hundred and fifty thousand Naira) as full and final payment. This again was not agreeable to the Respondent and hence his suit wherein he claimed the sum of N25, 000,000.00 (Twenty-five million Naira) as general damages among other reliefs. The matter went through full trial and hence the conclusion of the Court in favour of the Respondent herein before reproduced. Aggrieved by the outcome of the trial hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Respondent was able to establish that it was the negligence of the Appellant that caused the accident? Whether the Police Report of the accident indicted the Appellant? Whether from the circumstances of the whole case and the state of the pleadings, the Appellant breached any duty of care to the Respondent and if so, whether it was substantial enough to be solely responsible for the resultant accident? Whether upon a proper re-evaluation of the evidence led at the trial, the learned trial judge was right when he rejected the Appellants defence of inevitable accident and awarded the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) against the Appellant, a sum that is considered arbitrary and excessive?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GROUND OF APPEAL – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO DISTIL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION FROM GROUND OF APPEAL
“It is trite that when an Appellant failed to distil issue from any ground of appeal, such ground of appeal is deemed as abandoned and liable to be struck out. Such ground of appeal from which no issue is distilled can be described as impotent and or a toothless bull dog.”
NEGLIGENCE – DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENCE
“In Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition at pages 1061 negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation, any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others rights. In other words and considering the foregoing definition, negligence can be said to be the omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man under similar circumstance would do or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. See U.T.B. (Nig) V. Ozoemena (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 488; U.B.A. Ltd. V. Achoru (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 156) 254; Diamond Bank Ltd. V. Partnership Investment Company Ltd. & Anor (2009) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 159 at 1731; Abubakar & Anor V. Joseph & Anor (2008) 5-6 SC. (Pt.11) 146.”
NEGLIGENCE – CONDITIONS WHICH A PLAINTIFF MUST ESTABLISH FOR A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE
“If I may recall, the old case of Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) AC. 562 laid the foundation of the law of negligence. Three conditions are laid down which the Plaintiff must establish for a successful claim under negligence. They are:
(a) That the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff.
(b) The duty of care was breached.
(c) The Plaintiff suffered damages arising from the breach.
See the cases of Oyidiobu V. Okechukwu (1972) 5 SC. 191; U.T.B. (Nig) V. Ozoemena (Supra).”
NEGLIGENCE – CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
“Let me quickly add that negligence as tort may be described as a breach of a duty to take care imposed by common or statute law, resulting in damages to the complainant. See the case of Thomas Chukwuma Makwe V. Chief Obanua Nwukor (2001)10 SCM 69. Further to this, negligence is a question of fact not law and such case must be decided in the light of its own facts. Royal Ade Nig. Ltd & Anor V. National Oil And Chemical Marketing Company Plc. (2004) 4 SCM 189; Umar V. Ahunga (1999) ALL NLR 747.”
DUTY OF CARE – DUTY OF CARE OWED BY ROAD USERS
“Putting all the foregoing together, it is my view that in general, motorist and other road users owe a duty of care to one another. See Donoghue V. Stevenson (Supra); Okonkwo V. M.P.D.T. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 617)1 at 5. It is trite that an average road user must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foreseen would likely be affected by his act or omission and that he ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. See Orhue V. NEPA (1998) 5 SCNJ. 133. It must not be forgotten that duty of care has its origin on the concept of foreseeability as decided in the old case of Heaven V. Pencher (1983) 11 QBD 503 at 509 where Bret M.R. said: Whenever one person is by circumstance placed in such a position with regard to another, that everyone of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to the circumstances he would cause danger, injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care skill and avoid such danger.” Back in Nigeria, See the case of Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Ltd. V. Margarida Saluado De Lluch (2004) 9-12 SCNJ (Pt.1) 143. No wonder in Islam and Christianity, it is one of the pillars of the two religion to love ones neighbour. The divine rule of love your neighbour has found its way into the law. That is to say that you must not injure your neighbour. In law, the neighbour is the fellow one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which one can reasonably foresee would likely injure the neighbour. Therefore in law one can say that the neighbours are persons who are so closely and directly affected by the act of another and which that other ought to have them in contemplation. Therefore, a person owes a duty of care to his neighbours who would be directly affected by his act or omission. See the case of Honouable Justice K.O. Anyah (Rtd) V. Imo Concorde Hotels Ltd & 2 Ors (2003) 14 SCM. 51.”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“The principle governing the evaluation of evidence has since been settled in Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 1 and numerous other cases. The Court is bound to put the entire evidence on the imaginary scale of justice to determine in whose favour the balance tilts. See the case of Hon. Eseme Eyiboh V. Mr. Dan Abia & Ors. (2012) LPELR 20607; Nkebisi V. State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 471; Dakat V. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 46; Baba V. N.C.A.T.C. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388. It is trite that where evaluation of evidence is satisfactorily performed, an Appellate Court will not interfere. See Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Abisi & Ors V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.302) 643; Igago V. The State (1999) 12 SCNJ 140 at 160.”
DAMAGES – DEFINITION OF DAMAGES
“By way of definition damages are compensation in money. They are sum of money given to a successful plaintiff as compensation for loss or harm of any kind. See Soetan V. Ogunwo (1975) 6 SC. 67; Shell Petroleum Development Co. (Nig) Ltd. V. Tiebo & Ors (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 657. At P. 680. Put in another way, it is that pecuniary compensation which the law awards to a person for the injury he has sustained by reason of the act or default of another whether that act or default is a breach of contract or tort. See Umudje & Anor V. Shell Petroleum Development. Co. Of Nig. (1975) 9-11 SC. 155 at 162; Iyere V. Bendel Feed & Flour Mill Ltd. (2008) 7-12 SC. 151 at 192; Anambra State Enviromental Sanitation Authority & Anor V. Ekwenem (2009) 6-7 (Pt. 11) SC. 5; Agbanelo V. Union Bank (2000) 4 SCNJ 353; Cameroon Airlines V. Mr. Mike E. Otutuizu (2011)1-2. SC. (Pt.111) 200.”
GENERAL DAMAGES – MEANING OF GENERAL DAMAGES
“The term general damages covers all losses which are not capable of exact quantification. It also include all none financial losses. See Osuji V. Isiocha (1989) 6 SC. (Pt. 11) 158; Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. African Continental Bank Ltd (2004) 1 SC. (Pt. 1) 32.”
CIVIL MATTERS – BASIS UPON WHICH CIVIL MATTERS ARE DETERMINED
“Having said this it is trite that Civil Matters are determined on preponderance of evidence. See Health Care Products (Nig) Ltd. V. Bazza (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) Pg 582; Gbafe V. Gbafe (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 455) page 417 at 432.”
GENERAL DAMAGES – WHETHER PARTY SEEKING GENERAL DAMAGES OUGHT TO PLEAD THE QUANTUM OF SAME
“It is trite that claim for general damages are always made as a claim at large. That is to say that the quantum itself need not be pleaded. See Dumez (Nig) Ltd. V. Patrick Nwaka Ogboli (1972) 3 SC. 196.”
AWARD OF DAMAGES – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH AN AWARD OF DAMAGES BY THE TRIAL COURT
“As I have said in this judgment before that as a general rule an Appellate Court ought not to upset the award of damages by a trial Court merely because if it hard tried the matter it would have awarded a lesser amount. But the Court may intervene where it is satisfied that the Judge in assessing the damages applied a wrong principle of law such as taking into account some irrelevant factor or leaving out of account some relevant factors or that the amount awarded is either so ridiculously low or so ridiculously high that it must have been wholly erroneous estimate of the damages. See International Messengers (Nig) Ltd. V. Pegofor Industries Limited (2005) 5 SC. (Pt. 1) 38.”
AWARD OF DAMAGES – QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR THE AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES
“In the case of UBA Ltd V. Achoru (1990) 9 10 SC. 115, the Appellate Court has decided that in a case for loss of amenities of life in personal injury cases like the case at hand, there is no law fixing the quantum of evidence required, but evidence of physical disability arising from the damages would be sufficient.”
AWARD OF DAMAGES – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING DAMAGES
“Award of damages is an exercise of discretion. To interfere in such exercise of discretion, unless it is made under certain peculiar circumstance which include the following the Appellate Court will not interfere;
(a) When the exercise of discretion by the trial Court is perverse.
(b) Where the Court acted under wrong principle of law or
(c) Where the court acted in disregard of applicable principle or
(d) Where the Court acted in misapprehension of fact or
(e) Where the Court took into consideration irrelevant matters and disregarded relevant matters whist considering its award or
(f) When injustice will result if Appellate Court does not act or
(g) Where the amount awarded is ridiculously low or ridiculously high that it must have been an erroneous estimate of the damages. See the case of SAidu H. Ahmed & 2 Ors V. Central Bank Of Nigeria (2012) 7 SC. (Pt.11).”
AWARD OF DAMAGES – FACTORS THE COURT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN AWARDING DAMAGES
“In considering the award of damages, the Court must take into consideration (i) The financial loss resulting from the injury; (ii) The personal injury involving not only the pain and suffering but also the loss of pleasure. See the case of Samson Ediagbonya V. Dumez (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 753 at 761. The Supreme Court in dealing with issue of pain and suffering stated that once the injury is grater the pain and suffering of the claimant who is aware that life expectations has been affected and reduced by the injury, the Court must put the party in the position he would have been, if the accident had not occurred.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
