NIPOL LIMITED VS BIOKU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD.
July 11, 2025CHIEF S. A. DADA VS OTUNBA ADENIRAN OGUNSANYA
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-03) Legalpedia 84162 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Apr 10, 1992
Suit Number: SC 70/1988
CORAM
UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLATAWURA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKPATA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ODINAKA
APPELLANTS
MOGHALU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Motor cycle parts were packed in 29 wooden cases and were to be transported by the defendants from Port Harcourt and delivered to the plaintiff at the plaintiff’s warehouse The plaintiffs claimed that the loss of their goods occurred as a result of the negligence of the defendants.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the onus of proving that there was no negligence rested on the bailee, thus the appellants were negligent.
ISSUES
Whether or not the appellants were negligent
RATIONES DECIDENDI
MEANING IF NEGLIGENCE
“Negligence generally, is 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.
ONUS TO PROOVE NEGLIGENCE
Generally, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish negligence, except in matters of tort where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable, and cases of bailment where the onus of proving that there is no negligence is on the bailee.” Per AKPATA, JSC
CASES CITED
Ogugua V. Armels Transport Ltd. (1974 – 75)9 N.S.C.C. 169/172
STATUTES REFERRED TO
