- Reynolds Construction Co. (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Edomwonyi
- ₦ 200
Reynolds Construction Co. (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Edomwonyi
REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (NIGERIA)
S. I. EDOMWONYI
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
RAPHAEL OLUFEMI ROWLAND, JCA ( Presided )
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JCA
19TH JUNE 2002
- Findings of fact of trial court - Attitude of appellate court thereto
CONTRACT - Contract of which time is of essence - Failure to perform at
the stipulated time - Effect
CONTRACT - Recission or breach of contract - Repayment of money had in
event of - Grant of - Guiding principles - Position of party in default
CONTRACT - Written agreement not required under the law to be in
writing - Whether can be rescinded or
CONTRACT - Written contract - Oral agreement to modify same
DAMAGES - Claim for loss of earnings - Need to plead particulars of
rate of earnings
DAMAGES - Special damages - Claim for special damages - Need for to be
supported by evidence
- Strict proof of special damages - Meaning of
- Evidence of witness - Proper time to cast aspersion thereon
EVIDENCE - Oral agreement to modify a written contract - Admissibility
AND PHRASES - Strict proof of special damages - Meaning of
Whether there is evidence in support of the finding of
the lower court that the appellant breached the contract.
Whether there is evidence to justify the award of the
claim for the sum of N90,000.00 in favour of the respondent.
Whether the counter-claim was properly dismissed.
sometime in May 1991, entered into an agreement with the appellant in that the
appellant would take sand, from the respondentâ€™s burrow pit. It was part of the
agreement that the said sand which covered two acres, would be cleared by the
appellant who would in turn pay N4,000.00 on one of the two acres and he, the
respondent, would take the other acre of cleared land. The agreement was signed
on 4/5/91 by the respondentâ€™s younger brother, John Enoma, because he
(respondent) is completely blind. The appellant, told him that work would start
on the agreed land at 9.00a.m. on 28/5/91. In view of this undertaking by the
appellant, he told his customers not to go to the existing burrow pit to take
sand. On 28/5/91, he went to the land in issue and waited till 10 a.m. without
seeing any staff of the appellant. He thereafter went to the office of the
appellant where he saw Samson who told him that an expatriate staff of the
appellant told him to inspect another personâ€™s land which is adjacent to his
(respondent) own. On 30/5/91, the appellant went to the said neighbouring land
and started doing the type of work that would have been done on the
the time the agreement was entered into with the appellant, another company,
Meemax Nigeria Ltd., offered to rent the two acres for N2m but the offer was
turned down. On the respondentâ€™s instruction, his lawyer gave the appellant an
ultimatum of seven days to go to the site or pay compensation of N1,000,000.00.
When nothing was done by the appellant, the respondent sued it at the lower
court claiming special and general damages. The appellant counter-claimed.
conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge partially allowed the respondentâ€™s
claim and dismissed the appellantâ€™s counter-claim in its entirety.
Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.