JONAH ABBEY KALIO & ORS VS CHIEF M.D. DANIEL-KALIO
August 9, 2025VICTORIA ANISIUBU V ANTHONY EMODI
August 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 11116
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ENUGU
Fri Feb 14, 1975
Suit Number: SC. 254/1974
CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (NIGERIA) LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The defendants were contracted to transport 4 packages of the plaintiffs personal effects. The packages were negligently lost by the defendants and the plaintiff made a case of damage for negligence against the defendants.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that defendants did not exercise the degree of care required of them as a reputable firm and as the onus of disproving negligence rested on them, that onus was never discharged.
ISSUES
Whether the plaintiff pleaded particular acts of negligence
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF BAILEE TO RENDER ACCOUNT FOR GOODS OF BAILOR IN HIS CUSTODY
“We think that whenever goods belonging to one person are conditionally entrusted to the care of another person for safe keeping or for other purposes, whether gratuitously or for reward, on the clear understanding that the goods in question shall ultimately be returned or delivered to the owner, that failure to return or deliver the said goods as agreed upon raises a presumption of negligence against the defaulting party. We take the view that in order to rebut the presumption, the party concerned should show to the satisfaction of the court that the loss occurred not through their fault, carelessness or recklessness, but in spite of all reasonable precaution taken by them in order to ensure the safety of the goods in question. To hold otherwise, will, in our view, work hardship on the owner of such goods. We think that it is good sense that the court should presume that the loss of such goods and the circumstances surrounding it, would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the party into whose custody they were entrusted. At the very best, the owner of such goods can only hazard a guess, but it has been rightly said that “the court of justice does not go by speculation.” Per D. O. IBEKWE, JSC
CASES CITED
Chief D. O.Ogugua v. Armels Transport Limited (1974) 3 S.C. 139 at 144
STATUTES REFERRED TO
