SPASCO VEHICLE AND PLANT HIRE CO. LTD. V. ALRAINE (NIGERIA) LIMITED - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

SPASCO VEHICLE AND PLANT HIRE CO. LTD. V. ALRAINE (NIGERIA) LIMITED

JOY T. WAKAMA VS ADOLPHUS KALIO & ANOR
July 4, 2025
RABBO DAMINA VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025
JOY T. WAKAMA VS ADOLPHUS KALIO & ANOR
July 4, 2025
RABBO DAMINA VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025
Show all

SPASCO VEHICLE AND PLANT HIRE CO. LTD. V. ALRAINE (NIGERIA) LIMITED

Legalpedia Citation: (1995) Legalpedia (SC) 15183

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tue Sep 26, 1995

Suit Number: SC.164/1989

CORAM


UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI


PARTIES


SPASCO VEHICLE AND PLANT HIRE CO. LTD APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant/plaintiff brought an action against the respondent/defendant for release of his crane which was on hire. The Trial Court found in his favour in part, not satisfied, he appealed, the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal in part and gave judgment for the appellant. Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff has appealed to this court


HELD


In the final result, I find no substance in any of the points urged on behalf of the appellant in this court to justify the reversal of the decision of the court below. Consequently this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed with N1,000.00 costs to the respondent against the appellant.


ISSUES


Did the respondent on whom the onus of proof rested to establish sale of the crane as against the appellant’s contention that it was a hiring, discharge the onus and was the Court of Appeal right in not considering this requirement?

Was the Court of Appeal correct in the view which it held that the “Sale” of the crane by Mr. Usher was valid and that the appellant (and/or trial Judge) should have initiated criminal proceedings as a condition precedent to the action?

Was the Court of Appeal right in dismissing the appellant’s claims based on hire of the crane after it had concluded, against the denials of the respondent, that there was in fact a hiring.

There being no evidence that appellant tendered Exhibit N, the butt of the respondent’s defence and the basis of its judgment, was the Court of Appeal correct in its view that the Exhibit (N), was tendered by the appellant and that the appellant was in consequence bound by it as a result of which the court set aside the judgment of the High Court?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 3 ECSLR. 267
Kalu Njoku and others v. Ekwu Eme and others (1973) 5 SC. 295
Odumosu v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1976) 11 SC, 261 at 264
Aderemi v. Adedire (1966) NMLR 398
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Southport Corporation (1956) AC. 218.
Commissioner for Works, Benue State and Another v. Devcom Development Consultants Ltd. and Another (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.83) 407
Ochonma v. Ashirim Unosi (1965) NMLR 321 at 323


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1979 Constitution of Nigeria


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.