IFEANYICHUKUWU TRADING INVESTMENT VENTURES LTD. & ANOR V ONYESOM COMMUNITY BANK LTD
April 30, 2025ELISHA KWEWUM VS BAKO EYI
April 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 61125
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Jun 25, 2015
Suit Number: CA/L/773/2007
CORAM
PARTIES
NIGERITE LIMITED APPELLANTS
DR. GBADEBO O. OSOBA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent contracted the services of the Defendant/Appellant to install roofing sheet at the Plaintiff/Respondents property at Block A Plot 18, Ibara Housing Estate, Abeokuta, Ogun State for the sum of N1, 444, 755.40 (One Million Four Hundred and Forty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Five Naira, Forty Kobo) and to be executed within 3 weeks but the Defendant/Appellant could not deliver within the stipulated time. The Plaintiff/Respondent being displeased thus took out a Writ of Summons against the Defendant/Appellant for breach of contract and claiming damages in respect of same. At the end of the trial, damages was awarded against the Defendant/Appellant in the sum of N2, 500, 000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages to install the roofing sheets. Aggrieved by the amount of damages awarded against it, the Defendant/Appellant has appealed against same.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
Whether the lower court was right when in spite of the breach of contract, it granted the sum of N2, 500, 000.00 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages in favour of the Respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CLAIM IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – THE CLAIM MUST BE SPECIFIC AND MUST NEVER BE PRESUMED
“In breach of contract nothing is presumed but the claim must be established as what would have restored the claimant to the position if the contract had not been breached. It is trite that damages cannot be awarded if the claim of special damages fails, the case crumbles.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
BREACH OF CONTRACT – DEFINITION OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT.
“Breach of contract was defined in the case of OBMIAMI BRICK & STONE (NIG) LTD V ACB LTD (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt 229) 260 thus:
“It must be borne in mind that the simple operation of contract is that where parties voluntarily agree to do an act and one of the parties neglected or defaulted from carrying out or doing what was agreed to be done, then there is a breach of that contract by the party who neglected or defaulted in performing his or her own side of the contract and the person responsible for the breach of the contract will be liable in damages to the other party.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – NATURE OF DAMAGES CLAIMED IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT MUST BE SPECIFIC.
“However the Supreme Court held that general and special damages are not appropriate in an action for breach of contract. See G. CHIDEX V OCEANIC BANK (SUPRA).In fact, a party claiming damages for breach of contract must plead and prove the actual loss it suffered. The loss must be real and not speculative. See DIAMOND BANK LTD V PAMOB WEST- AFRICA LTD (2014) LPELR – 24337 (CA), 31.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – IT IS NOT PROPER TO AWARD GENERAL DAMAGES IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT.
“It is also important to note that in an award of damages for breach of contract, it is not proper to award general damages and it is only special damages that are claimable with all particulars and evidence in support of all awards are required. See A.C.B. PLC V NDOMA – EGBA (2000) 10 NWLR (PT.675)229” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
TYPES OF DAMAGES – DAMAGES COULD EITHER BE GENERAL OR SPECIAL.
“It is settled that there are 2 genres of damages known as general and special damages. The Supreme Court on the two types damages usually awarded stated thus:
“General damages” are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of whereas “Special damages” are such damages as the law will not infer from the nature of the act complained of. They are exceptional character wise and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The difference between the two types of damages is that, whereas, in the former case the court can make an award when it cannot point out any measure of assessment except what it can hold in the opinion of reasonable men. In that later case all the losses claimed on every item must have crystallized in terms and value before trial.”
See Nigerian Communications Commission V Motor Phone Ltd & ANOR (2007) LPELR – 8893 (CA)and also Adekunle V Rockview Hotels Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 161 at 173 – 174 and Adedo V Ismaila (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt 573) 214.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – WHAT QUANTUM OF DAMAGES ENTAILS
“The assessment of damages is generally the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for breach of contract and should be the amount it will entail to put the person in the position he would have been if there had not been any breach of contract. It is therefore the recovery of such loss as the claimant is entitled to what is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the breach within the knowledge of the parties, or by the party which commits the breach, see G. CHITEX INDUSTRIES LTD V OCEANIC BANK INTERNATIONAL NIG LTD (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 392 at 419.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
DAMAGES – DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIAL AND GENERAL DAMAGES
“The single most significant difference between the two types of damages was stated in the case of SHODIPO & COMPANY LTD V DAILY TIMES OF NIGERIA LTD (1972) LPELR – 3065 (SC) thus:
“The only difference is that, where one is claiming special damages the circumstances are such that one is able to put one’s finger on a particular item of loss and say, I can prove that I lost so much there, so much here.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT THE TRAIL JUDGE MUST REGARD WHEN EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED.
“Evaluation of evidence as a standard had been set in the case of ABISI V EKWEALOR (1993) NWLR (Pt 302) 643 where the court reiterated what evaluation of evidence is in these words:
“Before a Judge whom evidence is adduced by the parties before him in a civil case comes to a decision as to which evidence he believes or accepts and which evidence he rejects, he should first of all put the totality of the testimony adduced by both parties on that imaginary scale; he will put the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the defendant on the other side and weigh them together. He will then see which is heavier not by the quality of probative value of the testimony of those witnesses. This is what is meant when it is said that a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, in determining which is heavier, the Judge will naturally have regard to the following
a. Whether the evidence is admissible
b. Whether it is relevant;
c. Whether it is credible;
d. Whether it is conclusive; and
e. Whether it is more probable than that given by the other party.
f. Finally after invoking the law, if any, that is applicable to the case, the trial Judge will then come to his final conclusion based on the evidence which he has accepted.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
CATEGORY OF DAMAGES IN BREACH OF CONTRACT – THERE IS ONLY ONE CATEGORY OF DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.
In any case there is only one category of damages in breach of contract actions as held in the case of P. Z & COMPANY LTD V A. J. OGEDENGBE (1972) LPELR – 2894 (SC) where the court held thus:
“Thus the terms ‘general’ and ‘special’ damages are normally in apt in the categorization of damages for the purposes of awards in cases of breach of contract. We have had occasion to point this out before (see AGBAJE V NATIONAL MOTORS LTD (S.C. 20/68 dated 13th March, 1970) and we must make the point the apart from damages naturally resulting from the breach, no other form of general damages can be contemplated.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
MEASURE OF DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES IS NOT TO BE SPECULATIVE.
“The measure of damages is said to be the loss which is reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract and there is no room for damages which are merely speculative or sentimental unless specifically provided for by the express terms of the contract, see P. Z. V OGEDENGBE (1972) 3 SC 98.” PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
