- Royal Ade Nig. Ltd v. N.O.C. M.C. Plc.
- ₦ 200
Royal Ade Nig. Ltd v. N.O.C. M.C. Plc.
ROYAL ADE NIGERIA LTD
( Trading under the name and style of David Adegoke Enterprises)
NATIONAL OIL AND CHEMICAL
MARKETING COMPANY PLC
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JSC ( Presided )
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JSC
UMARU ATU KALGO, JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JSC
FRIDAY, 16TH APRIL, 2004
APPEAL - Findings of trial court - When appellate court can set aside
COURT - Findings of trial court - When appellate court can set aside
TORT - Negligence - Liability of defendant - What plaintiff must prove to establish
TORT - Negligence - Vicarious liability - Servant of an employer - Need to find same negligent before making the employer vicariously liable in negligence
TORT - Res ipsa loquitur - Principle of - Application and scope of same
TORT - Res ipsa loquitur - Principle of - Exceptions and limitations to
TORT - Res ipsa loquitur - Principle of - Meaning and purport of
WORDS AND PHRASES - â€œRes ipsa loquiturâ€™ - Meaning of
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding on the evidence adduced by the respondent, that the respondent, discharged the burden of proof placed on it by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant did not plead the position of the vent pipe and if the answer is no, whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by that holding.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal rightly held that the learned trial Judge failed to properly or adequately evaluate the evidence led before him.
The plaintiffs at the High Court of Lagos State Ikeja Division claimed for the replacement of their Mercedes Benz petrol tanker registration No. LA 2219S, which was completely burnt on the 6th day of February, 1988 while the defendant was unloading the fuel brought to the defendantâ€™s petrol station located at Ipokia Idiroko in the Egbado Local Government Area of Ogun State.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was negligent and in breach of duty of care including their servants or agents since the petrol tanker was handed over to the defendantâ€™s petrol attendants for unloading at the station by the plaintiffâ€™s tanker driver before the fire incident.
The petrol tanker caught fire and inspite of the petrol tanker driverâ€™s effort, the tanker was gutted down.
The defendant never disputed the facts but the issue is, what caused the fire and who was liable for the fire incident. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and upheld their claims. The defendant being dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division). The Court of Appeal found in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs, being dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.