CAMEROON AIRLINES VS MR. MIKE E. OTUTUIZU

CORAM

PARTIES

CAMEROON AIRLINES APPELLANTS

MR. MIKE E. OTUTUIZU

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent is a business man who booked a flight to go to Swaziland by way of Cameroon but instead was taken to South Africa where he was arrested and taken to Zimbabwe and his personal effect amounting to $20,000.00 removed from him and never returned to him. The respondent as plaintiff claimed general and special damages against the defendant/appellant amounting to N5million naira. The trial Judge entered in favour of the plaintiff but reduced the damages to N580, 000.00. The defendant appealed and the appellant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and found for the cross-appellant. The appellant has further appealed.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the subject matter of this action being one of international carriage of passengers and goods by air is not exclusively governed by the Warsaw Convention; 1955 (applicable in Nigeria by virtue of the (Colonies Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order 1953, Vol. XI of the 1958 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

2. Whether the award of N500,000.00 as general damages upheld by the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal is sustainable having regard to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention (as amended at the Hague, 1955), the findings of the trial judge and the evidence adduced at the trial?

3. Whether the leaned Justices of the Court of Appeal could rightly award a common law remedy of special damages in the sun of US $20,000.00 to the respondent when the said remedy is already covered by the statutory provision of the Warsaw Convention?

4. Whether the award of $20,000.00 as special damages by the learned justices of the court of Appeal is supportable in Law having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial and the findings of the trial judge.5. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in discountenancing the Appellant’s reply brief for allegedly containing further arguments in respect of the appellant’s main appeal?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LIABILITY FOR WILFUL BREACH OF CONTRACT

“Indeed in all other cases spelt out in the Convention the limits on liability must be followed but where there is breach of contract of such a magnitude that it amounts to a willful act, a willful misconduct the limits are no longer applicable” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

ROLE OF RESPONDENT

“The role of the respondent in an appeal is to defend the judgment of the trial court, but where the respondent is not comfortable with a finding (not the entire judgment) in the judgment which he considers fundamental he can only do so by filing a cross-appeal” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION

“The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Aviation related causes of action.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

NATURE OF AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS

“Averments in pleadings are facts as perceived by the party relying on them. There must be oral or/and documentary evidence to show that the facts pleaded are true.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

SPECIAL DAMAGES MUST BE STRICTLY PROVED

“To succeed in a claim for Special damages a party must plead, particularise, or itemise it. It must be claimed specially and proved strictly.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

DISTINCTION BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES

“Special damages are for a fixed sum, unlike General damages which are at large, and awarded entirely at the discretion of the Judge.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

CASES CITED

None.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1999 ConstitutionThe Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague 1955

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT