- SCOA Nig. Ltd v. J. A. Kehinde & Sons Nig. Ltd
- ₦ 200
SCOA Nig. Ltd v. J. A. Kehinde & Sons Nig. Ltd
J. A. KEHINDE &
SONS NIG. LTD.
COURT OF APPEAL
( IBADAN DIVISION )
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, JCA
VICTOR A. OYELEYE OMAGE, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
TUESDAY, 10TH JUNE, 2003
APPEAL - Findings of trial court - When appellate court will interfere
COURT - Findings of trial court - When appellate court will interfere
- Legal conclusion of courts - Where drawn from
EVIDENCE - Proof - Where no wrong is proved - Whether there can be
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Penalty - Whether there can be penalty where
no wrong is proved
TORT - Detinue - Right therein - When occurs - Whether can occur where
goods belonging to another are detained to the knowledge and consent of the
in the absence of a finding by the trial court of a breach of contract against
the defendant/appellant; a subsequent award of damages
against it has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Whether the trial court was not wrong in law when it
awarded damages not specifically claimed by the plaintiff.
Whether it does not amount to an arbitrary and double
compensation for the trial Judge to have initially awarded N20,000 against the
defendant for the loss of the plaintiffâ€™s chickens occasioned by the
inavailability of a vehicle, and later award of N40,000 as damages for costs
incurred by the plaintiff in paying its staff and cost of alternative
transportation due to the same reason.
The chairman of the respondent
sometime in February 1988 gave instruction to his employee to take the
companyâ€™s vehicle, a Mitsubishi Canter, to the appellantâ€™s workshop at Abeokuta
for the appellant to rectify the problem of engine oil consumption in the said
vehicle, at a cost of not more than N3,500. By a letter, dated 18th June 1989,
the appellant asked the respondent to go to its workshop at Abeokuta to collect
the said vehicle upon the payment of the sum of N11,309.00 being costs of the
repairs of the said vehicle. Following the letter the respondent went to
Abeokuta workshop of the appellant on 7/6/89 and found that the vehicle could
not work. The respondent then demanded to see the inventory of the parts
supplied to the car, and equally directed that the appellant should do nothing
on the vehicle until he revisits the appellant with his engineer. Consequently,
the appellant did nothing on the vehicle and the respondent too refused to
visit the appellant with his engineer until the appellant wrote to inform the
respondent that the appellant would close its Abeokuta workshop and will
transfer and take to Ibadan the respondentâ€™s vehicle if the respondent fails to
collect his vehicle at Abeokuta workshop. After exchange of series of
communication, the respondentâ€™s vehicle was transferred to appellantâ€™s workshop
at Ibadan. The appellant thereafter submitted another list of the repairs
required to be carried out on the vehicle which list the respondent rejected.
In about March 1991, the
respondent wrote and demanded the return of his vehicle back to Abeokuta, the
appellant equally wrote and demanded the payment of the unpaid bill by the
respondent. As the negotiation between the parties failed, the respondent as
plaintiff instituted this action against the appellant claiming the return of
his vehicle packed at the Ibadan workshop of the appellant since June 1989 and
damages for breach of contract.
The appellant counter claimed
for the sum of N11,309.00 being costs of repairs of respondentâ€™s vehicle, the
sum of N250.00 per month for the storage of the respondentâ€™s car in its garage
and interest thereon at 15% from June 1989.
At the conclusion of the trial,
the trial court gave its judgment and made the following awards in the
The sum of N20,000 damages for the loss of chickens by
respondent since 1991.
The sum of N40,000 damages for expenses incurred on
staff transportation since 1991.
The sum of N154,820 being the amount due to the
respondent for the repairs of the vehicle.
Immediate release of respondentâ€™s vehicle.
N50,000 cost to be paid to respondent by appellant.
The trial court concluded that
the appellant shall be entitled to judgment for N11,084,56 in its counter claim
with N100.00 costs.
Being dissatisfied, the
appellant has appealed to the Court of