BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Achichi v. Ago
  • 140
  • 2003-02-03
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Achichi v. Ago

BROWN A. ACHICHI

 V

EZEKIEL AGO

COURT OF APPEAL

( JOS DIVISION )

ALOMA M. MUKHTAR,JCA ( Presided and Read Lead Judgment )

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JCA

IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO, JCA

CA/J/328/98

MONDAY, 13TH MAY, 2002

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Proper method  of attacking same

APPEAL - Issues - Issues not distilled from grounds of appeal - How treated EVIDENCE - Admission - Facts admitted - Whether need to be proved

EVIDENCE - Contradiction - Where does not affect the main  issue  - Need to discountenance

Issues:

1.          Whether the agreement referred to as exhibit ‘A’ on page 26 of the record is an aggregate of all respondent’s indebtedness to the appellant as held by the trial court.

2.          Whether special damages were strictly proved in suit No. OHC/ 40 /98 as contained in the trial court’s judgment delivered on 2 nd November,  1998.

3.          Whether the appellant’s counter-claim was a separate claim and not subsumed by the respondent’s suit No.OHC/40/98 as held in the judgment by the trial Judge.

Facts:

Respondent took his Mercedez Benz 911 lorry to the appellant for repair and incurred debt in the sum of N9,000 as a  result of which the appellant impounded the respondent’s  tyre already fixed in the vehicle. In addition to the above indebtedness, the appellant  rendered services to the responent on the same vehicle, in respect of which a further debt of N31,000 was incurred.  Appellant however, recovered  the said sum of N31,000 through a court action instituted against   the respondent. Despite the payment of the said sum of N31,000 appellant still refused to return  the respondent’s tyre. Respondent therefore brought this action against the appellant claiming the sum of N60,000 being special and general damages suffered as a result of the appellant’s conduct. Appellant counter-claimed. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found for the respondent and dismissed the appellant’s counter-claim. Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.