EASTERN BREWRIES PLC & ANOR VS. GEORGE MICHAEL INUEN
June 26, 2025ONYIA NWAGWU NGWU & ORS. V. UGWU ONUIGBO & ORS.
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (CA) 87771
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Wed Dec 1, 1999
Suit Number: CA/L/350/94
CORAM
PARTIES
1. HILARY FORMS LTD. 2. CHRISHILL OBI & BROTHERS LTD. 3. COBREX INDUSTRIES LTD.
1. M.V. MAHTRA (SISTER VESSEL TO M.V. KADRINA2. ESTONIA SHIPPING COMPANY3. ALRAINE NIGERIA LIMITED
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were the Plaintiffs before the Federal High Court, Lagos where they claimed against the Respondents, as Defendants, the sum of US$103,050,87, being damages “for loss or non-delivery of the voyage from Tallin to Lagos in or about May, 1993, sustained by reason of the Defendants’ breach of contract and/or duty and/or negligence in and about the carriage thereof.” As made Manifest in the claim, the Plaintiffs had a contract for carriage of goods with the Defendants. The goods consisted, of 658 boxes of Electric Water Heaters. According to Plaintiffs, the Defendants failed to deliver the goods. Parties failed and exchanged pleadings after which the Suit was tried by Auta J. who on 27/7/94, in his judgment dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the Plaintiffs have brought this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether on the available evidence the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for the loss of the contents of containers Nos. EMU 3606825 and MMU 1357739?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT
“In Lawal V. Dawodu (1972) ALL NLR 707 at 722, the Supreme Court observed:
“In the evaluation of evidence, we think it firmly established in our juris-prudence that a Court of Appeal ought not to except in exceptional circumstances to interfere with what must be the outcome of a dispassionate consideration of the evidence by a judge who saw and heard the witnesses give evidence. The ascription of probative values to the evidence comes at a later stage of the whole process and it is also established that this is a matter for the Judge who saw and heard those witnesses give their evidence. Nevertheless, the area is one in which the Court of Appeal is at least equally qualified and competent and indeed is often required to exercise jurisdiction in certain exceptional circumstances.”
See also Eriri V. Erhurhobarea (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 173) 252 at 273; Ebba V. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372 at 385″.
FINDINGS OF FACT – ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT
“An appeal Court does not inquire into disputes. It is not meant to fill a gap in the evidence before the Court below or interfere with its findings of fact. Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291″.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
