CORAM
ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BOONYAMIN OLADIRAN KAZEEM, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SAIDU KAWU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOHN O. IMONA-RUSSEL
APPELLANTS
NIGER CONSTRUCTION LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
TORT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant instituted an action against the respondent claiming special and general damages for trespass. After evidence was adduced, the court awarded only special damages. Aggrieved the respondent appealed at the court of appeal which allowed same, hence this present appeal.
HELD
Allowing the appeal
ISSUES
(i) Whether the Court of appeal was right in holding that in so far as the principals, namely, the Federal Government and the Bendel State Government had admitted that they put the Respondent on the land and had accepted responsibility in writing for the payment of compensation for the land they had in effect ratified the act of the Respondent and whatever the Defendant did on the land is deemed to have been done by the governments, and the Respondent is thus relieved of liability.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Federal and State Governments having ratified and adopted the acts of the Respondent on the land, this action ought not to lie against the Defendants who are contractors engaged in construction of roads in the country.
(iii) Whether the Court of Appeal having found as in (i) and (ii) above was right in dismissing the Appellants case in its entirety against the Respondent who the Court found not to be a trespasser, having regard to the 4 (four) grounds of appeal filed and argued before it
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WRONG IS DONE BY AN OFFICER OF THE CROWN AT COMMON LAW
Whatever the liability of the Crown servants or agents of the crown are personally liable for torts committed by them, notwithstanding that the acts leading to the commission of the torts were expressly authorized or ratified by the Crown. Per Uwais JSC
WRONG IS DONE BY AN OFFICER OF THE CROWN AT COMMON LAW
At common law when a wrong is done by an officer of the Crown to a British subject the person wronged has no legal remedy against the sovereign, for the King can do no wrong. But the person wronged may sue “the Kings officer for the tortuous act, and the Kings officer cannot plead the authority of the sovereign, for “from the maxim that the King cannot be wrong it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the King cannot authorize wrong. Per Uwais JSC
CASES CITED
Tobin v The Queen, (1864) 16 C.B. (N.S.) 310;
F eather v The Queen, (1865) 6 B & S257
Johnstone v Pedlar. (1921) 2 A.C. 262 at page 275
Buttes Gas & Oil Co. v Hammer, (1975)2W.L.R. 425 at page 435
Walker v Baird & Anor (1892) A.C.49
Edok-Eter Mandilas Ltd. v Ale & Ors
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Laws of England (Application Law) Cap.60 of the Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria, 1959
Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.89, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1958, Volume III
Crown Proceedings Act, 1947