GODWIN IWUAGWU & ORS V DAMIAN UZOMA

CORAM

PARTIES

GODWIN IWUAGWU& ORS

DAMIAN UZOMA

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On or about the 18/5/1993, the 5th Defendant/Appellant and a member of Amaraku Progressive Union, led a crowd of Amaraku indigenes into the premises of the Plaintiff/Respondent, and asked everyone therein to step out and lock up Respondent’s workshop, claiming that the people of Amaraku asked them to seal off the workshop, alleging that the Respondent was planning to kill one of their sons in the person of the 1st Appellant, an allegation which the Respondent denied. The Respondent, reported the matter to the police at Amaraku Police Division, where the police invited the 5th Appellant and others and warned them against taking the law into their hands, and ordered them to go and open the Respondent’s workshop, but they never did. The Respondent through his Counsel, wrote to the 28th Appellant, as President General, Amaraku Town Union, calling his attention to the illegal activities of some members of Amaraku community. There was no reply to the said letter and no action taken. The Respondent, thereafter, went to the 5th Appellant to demand for payment of a debt, outstanding from a failed contract, which he failed to complete. Instead of paying, the 5th Appellant rebuked the Respondent and threatened to deal with him and render him useless. Later, policemen from Shell Camp, Owerri, arrested the Respondent on the report of the 5th Appellant, alleging that the Respondent approached him to prepare concoction for the Respondent to kill the 1st Appellant. The police investigated the matter and searched Respondent’s house, but did not find anything incriminating, as such he was released and the Police told the parties to report for settlement. Subsequently, the Respondent, while at home, saw the Appellants in their number, invade his residential and business premises, armed. The Respondent was able to run to a nearby bush but saw the Appellants cart away some of his properties and set his premises on fire. As a result, he instituted an action. At the end of the trial, the lower Court awarded special damages of N4 Million and general damages of N2 Million against 18, out of the 24 Appellants that survived to see the end of the suit, which had been instituted against 32 Appellants. This appeal is against the said judgment.

HELD

Appeal Allowed In Part

ISSUES

Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent in this appeal proved special damages as required by law and therefore entitled to the award by the trial court.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- RIGHT OF THE COURT ON THE ADOPTION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

“The law is settled that this court is free to either adopt the issue(s) formulated by either party or to formulate such issue(s) that is consistent with the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant, to determine the appeal. See Labiyi v. Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 139 at 159; Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. ACB Ltd (2004) LPELR-1982(SC).”

“SPECIAL DAMAGES”- DEFINITION OF “SPECIAL DAMAGES”

“Special damages, according to Black Law Dictionary 5th Edition at page 354 is defined as: “Those which are the actual but not the necessary result of the injury complained of and which in fact, follow it as a natural and proximate consequence in the particular case that is by reason of special circumstances or condition.”

PROOF OF DAMAGES- METHOD OF PROVING DAMAGES IN COURT

“The law is well defined with respect to how damages are proved in court – whether general or special damages. Whereas, general damages can be inferred, as it normally flows from the wrongs committed by the defendant, and needs not be pleaded and proved by any empirical method, special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. See the case of Udeagha v. Nwogwugwu (2013) LPELR-21819(CA), where this Court said on the determination of special damages:
“The determination of what constitutes special damages is therefore not a matter of conjecture, assessment or estimation by the Court and can therefore not be considered in the context of nominal award, where the sum of N20,000 was awarded to the Respondent as “nominal” damage for his claim of N1,903, 196.60 as special damage. Even though the evidence had established that the Respondent’s skin was seized by the police … and was mishandled and later released (but not in the state it was seized) to qualify for special damages, clear evidence needed to be led to establish the actual monetary value of the skins recovered at the time of release of same to the Respondent, as special damages can only be in respect of ascertainable, proved amount. By making a nominal award of N20,000.00 to the Respondent, the Lower Court had expressly admitted absence of the correct basis for the award, and that cannot be in the domain of special damages.”

SPECIAL DAMAGES – MODE OF PLEADING AND PROVING SPECIAL DAMAGES

“Also in a recent case of Chevron (Nig) Ltd v. Chimezie A. Osigwe: CA/OW/226/2011, delivered on 11/7/2014. In that case, the trial court had awarded special damages of about N16.2 million to the Respondent (who also claimed the same amount) based on a lump claim for physical structure (destroyed and cracked) and for reparation/appeasement, without any evidence of the exact items or what was destroyed and the unit cost of the same and/or of what constituted the reparation/appeasement and the unit cost thereof, it was held that such award was without recourse to the known principles of pleading and strict proof of special damages. See also the case Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. ACB Ltd (2004) LPELR-1982(SC); (2004) 1 KLR (Pt. 170) 39; (2004) ALL NWLR (Pt. 198) 1175, and Xtoudos Services Nig. Ltd v. Taise (W.A.) Ltd (2006) 6 KLR 2411 at 2425; (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 333) 1640; (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 533, where the apex court held:
“With regard to how to plead and prove special damages, the law is quite clear that special damages must be specifically pleaded. In this respect, a Plaintiff claiming, special damages have obligation to particularize any item of damage. Obligation to particularize arises not because the n3eertyhtrature of the loss is necessarily unusual but because the Plaintiff who has the advantage of being able to base his claim on a precise calculation must give the defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible. “See also Daniel Holding v. UBA Plc (2005) 11 MJSC 69 at 73; Cameroon Airlines v. Olutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512; Spring Bank Plc v. Adekunle (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1229) 581; NNPC v. WIFCO Nig. Ltd (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1255) 29.”

SPECIAL DAMAGES – WHETHER A COURT IS PERMITTED TO SPECULATE ON ISSUE OF SPECIAL DAMAGES

“The law does not allow a court to speculate on issue of special damages, and allocate value for alleged damages, by resort to sentiment and gestures, where the party who suffered the damages fails to plead the particulars of the same, by mentioning thSe item(s), in their numbers with the unit costs of each, and lead evidence in proof of it, to enable the court calculate what is due to him, under the head of the specific or special damages.”

SPECIAL DAMAGES – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO FAILS TO ALLOCATE COSTS TO THE ITEMS CLAIMED IN SPECIAL DAMAGES

“I think, where a Respondent, failed to allocate costs to the items claimed in special damages, after he had duly documented and pleaded the damaged items (as in the Exhibit 2), he should, at least, lead evidence at the trial to prove the value of the damaged items, to be able to win the discretion of the court in his favour. He should produce the receipts or documents showing when and where he bought those items and their costs.”

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT