CHIEF EBENEZER AWOTE & ORS VS SUNMOLA KADIRI OWODUNNI & ANOR
July 21, 2025M. A. OMISADE & 3 ORS VS HARRY AKANDE
July 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1987) Legalpedia (SC) 11421
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Thu Apr 16, 1987
Suit Number: SC.100/1985
CORAM
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH,JUSTICE SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MANAGMENT ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR
APPELLANTS
JOHNATHAN OTUSANYA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
NEGLIGENCE-APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-JURISDICTION-LATIN MAXIMS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Following a dismissal of the respondents claim for special and general damages for negligence on the part of the appellants, an appeal at the court of appeal was allowed, hence this present appeal.
HELD
Allowing the appeal
ISSUES
None.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court as conferred by Section 213 of the 1979 Constitution is to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal and not from the High Court. Per Oputa JSC
DECISIONS BASED ON COURT WITH IS TAINTED WITH A FUNDAMENTAL VICE
The Court of Appeal cannot possibly hear and decide on an appeal from a judgment (of a High Court) which is tainted with a fundamental vice, a judgment that is not only void-able but void ab initio. Per Oputa JSC
WHEN A QUESTION OF LAW IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME
When a question of law is raised for the first time in a Court of last resort, upon the construction of a document, or upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy, it is not only competent but also expedient, in the interest of justice to entertain the point. Per Oputa JSC
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
A point presented for the first time in a Court of Appeal ought to be most jealously scrutinised. Per Oputa JSC
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA
The doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” is not meant to supplement inconclusive evidence of negligence on the part of plaintiff. Rather it is meant to apply where there is no other proof of negligence than the accident itself. Per Oputa JSC
LATIN MAXIMS: RES IPSA LOQUITUR
“Res Jose loquitur” is no more than a rule of evidence affecting the onus of proof. The essence of the maxim is that an event, which in the ordinary course of things, was more likely than not to be caused by negligence was by itself evidence of negligence depending of course on the absence of explanation. The doctrine merely shifts the onus on the defendant. If the facts are sufficiently known or where the defendant gave an explanation, the doctrine will no longer apply. Per Oputa JSC
RELIANCE ON THE DOCTRINE OF “RES IPSA”
Reliance on the doctrine of “res ipsa” is thus a confession by the Plaintiff that he has no direct and affirmative evidence of the negligence complained of against the defendant but that the surrounding circumstances amply establish such negligence. Per Oputa JSC
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
An issue of jurisdiction is radically fundamental and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time in a Court of last resort. Per Oputa JSC
LATIN MAXIMS: RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Res ipsa loquitur literally means “the thing speaks for itself” This latin maxim is applicable to actions for injury by negligence where no proof of such negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence. Per Oputa JSC
LEGAL PERSONALITY
Dead men are no longer legal personae as they laid down their legal personality with their lives at death. Thus being destitute of rights, duties or interests they can neither sue nor be sued. Per Oputa JSC
RELIANCE ON THE DOCTRINE OF “RES IPSA”
In relying on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff merely proves the resultant accident and injury and then asks the Court to infer therefrom negligence on the part of the defendant. The doctrine will not apply where: i. the facts proved are equally consistent with accident as with negligence; ii. there is evidence of how the accident happened and the difficulty (as in this case) arise merely from an inability to apportion blame between two negligent drivers. If these two drivers are servants of the same master the position may be different. Per Oputa JSC
CASES CITED
The Tasmania (1890) 15 App. Cap. 223 at p.225
Greer, L J. in Smith v. Carmmell Lairds & Co. (1938) 2 K.B. 700 at P.713 or (1938) 3 All. E.R. 52 C.A.
Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh (1892) A.C. 473 at p.480
O.G. Sofekun v. Akinyemi & Ors. (1980) 5-7 S.C. 1 at p.21
Donaghey v. P. OBrien & Co. & Others C.A. (1966) W.L.R. 1170
Donaghey & Boulton v. Paul Ltd. (1968) App. Cap. 1 at p.31
Clay v. Oxford (1866) L.R. 2 Exch. 54
Tetlow, v. Orela Ltd (1920) All E.R. Rep. 419
Dawson (Bradford) Ltd. & Ors. v. Dove & Anor. (1971) 1 All. E.R. 554
The Batavia (1845) 2 W.Rolf 407; The Valdis (1915) 31 T.L.R. 111
Barkwa v. South Wales Transport (1950) 1 All. E.R. 392
Skinner v. L. B. & S.C. Ry (1850) 5 Exch. 787.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1979 Constitution
High Court Law Cap. 44 of the Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria 1959
Common Law Procedure Act 1852
