J.B. ATUNRASE V. THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES & ANOR
August 5, 2025AGIP (NIGERIA) LIMITED VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE
August 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1977-12) Legalpedia (SC) 65118
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 16, 1977
Suit Number: SC. 392/1975
CORAM
FATAYI-WILLIAMS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
S.D. LAR
APPELLANTS
STIRLING ASTALDI (NIGERIA) LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW-COMPENSATION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant owned a large farm. The respondent in the course of road construction damaged the land and destroyed some of the crops. The respondents denied liability. The appellant appealed against the quantum of damages.
HELD
1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
The court held that the evidence of the appellant was precise and conclusive on the point so he was entitled to the full amount claimed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned trial judge misdirected himself on the facts when he dismissed the plaintiff/appellants claim for the cost of refilling the pit holding that there was no data on which such an award might be made
2. Whether the learned trial judge misdirected himself in law and on the facts in holding that general damages must be proved before an award may be made
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GENERAL DAMAGES
“General damages are such as the jury may give when the judge cannot point any measure by which they are to be assessed except the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man. A failure to produce any evidence at all may result in an award of small or even minimal damage. This is because the proper approach in such circumstances is to regard an injury or wrong as entitling the plaintiff to a judgment for damages in his favour even without loss or damage. But where there is no loss or damage such judgment will be for nominal damages only. PER FATAYI-WILLIAMS JSC
PROCEDURE FOR TESTING REASONABLENESS OF DAMAGES
In our view the test should be the reasonableness of a plaintiffs desire to reinstate the property; this would be judged in part by the advantages to such a plaintiff of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to a defendant in having to pay damages for such reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land” PER FATAYI-WILLIAMS JSC
CASES CITED
1. HOLLEBONE V. MIDHURST &FERNHURST BUILDERS AND EASTMAN AND WHITE OF MIDHURST (1968) 1 LLOYD REP 38
2. HARBUTTS PLASTICINE LTD V. WAYNE TANK AND PLUMP CO. LTD (1970) 1 ALL ER 225 CA
3. PREHN V. ROYAL BANK OF LIVERPOOL (1870) LR 5 EXCH 92
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
