NEW TOWNS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS v. ZANEN VERSTOP & COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED
(2019)LCN/13488(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 13th day of June, 2019
CA/L/887/2007
JUSTICES
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. NEW TOWNS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2. THE TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION
3. CAPTAIN GIWA
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE
5. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND TOURISM LAGOS STATE
6. DR. FRANK ADEJUWON Appellant(s)
AND
ZANEN VERSTOP & COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A COURT OF APPEAL CAN INTERFERE WITH AWARDS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
The Apex Court has set a standard in the case of THOMPSON & ANOR v ADEFOPE 1969 LPELR- 25560(SC) when it held thus; “When an appellant seeks to argue that damages are excessive he has to bear in mind that this Court does not upset an award of damages merely because we might have awarded a different figure if this Court had heard the case itself, but the appellant must show that the trial Judge proceeded upon some wrong principle of law or that the award was an entirely erroneous estimate. See Zik’s Press Ltd. v. Ikoku (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 188 which was followed by this Court in Solomons v. Adiele SC.626/66 of the 6th of December, 1968, and Agaba v. Otobusin [1961] All N.L.R. 299 and also the recent decision of this Court in Lagos City Council v. Ogunbiyi SC.127/67 of the 11th July, 1969 where we said- “Counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount awarded as damages under this head is excessive and unreasonable and that this Court ought to interfere. We do not wish to disguise the fact that the question of quantum of damages is always a difficult problem that the law or the Judge has to face. One cannot minimise the extremely difficult task of a Judge when he has to assess damages in these cases; and this Court, as a Court of appeal is always reluctant to interfere with awards made by Judges unless the award made is excessively high or unreasonably low. All the same, there are no special criteria whereby the appeal Court is to judge what is excessively high or unreasonably low. All awards however should include compensation for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and the loss of amenities of life.”
per LEWIS ,J.S.C ( PP. 10-11, PARAS. C-E)
See ODUWOLE & ORS v WEST (2010) LPELR – 2263 (SC). PER OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
WHAT CONSTITUTES EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
This honourable Court also recently had a chance to expatiate on what constitutes exemplary damages in the case of EZEAGU & ORS v NWONU (2016) LPELR ? 40164 (CA), where it held per YAKUBU, JCA thus;
?Now what is the essence of exemplary damages? The Supreme court in Chief F. R. A Williams v Daily Times of Nigeria Ltd (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 124) 1; (1990) 1 SC 23; (1990) LPELR ? 3847 (SC) at pages 45 ? 47 per his Lordship Eso, JSC, succinctly stated: ?Exemplary damages are usually awarded where statutes prescribe them and apart from this, they are only awarded for two categories to wit (1) Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government. See Lord Delvin in Rookes v Bernard (1964) A. C 1230 matters for compensation are different from matters for punishment. In Mc Caney v Associated Newspapers (1965) 2 Q. B. 104, Pearson, L. J. held ?Compensatory damages ?may include not only actual pecuniary loss and anticipated loss or any social disadvantages which result or may be thought likely to result from the wrong which has done?. This is not punishment. Punishment is best illustrated in the dictum of Lord Hailsham in Broome v Cassel (1972) A. C 1070, where Lord Hailsham regarded the principle of exemplary damages as teaching the defendant that tort does not pay. Lord Devlin has formulated in Rookes v Bernard that exemplary damages includes cases where the defendant with a cynical disregard for plaintiff?s rights has calculated that the money to be made out of his wrong will probably exceed the damages at risk. All these, that is in regard to exemplary damages include some deliberations that warrant punishment. (2) Where the defendant?s act which has been held to be tortuous was done with a guilty knowledge, the motive being that the chances of economic advantage outweigh the chances of economic or even (perhaps) physical penalty. (Another act of deliberateness)?” Further see Anthony Odiba v Tule Azege (1998) 2215 (SC); (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 556) 370; G. K. F. Investment Nig Ltd v NITEL Plc (2009) LPELR ? 1294 (SC); (2009) 15 NWLR (pt. 1164) 344. PER OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
FACTORS TO JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
The law is settled beyond peradventure that in order to justify an award of exemplary damages, it is not sufficient to show simply that the defendant has to be shown to be high ? handed, outrageous, insolent, vindictive, oppressive or malicious and showing contempt of the plaintiff?s rights, or disregarding every principle which actuates the conduct of civilized men. See ODIBA v AZEGE (1998) LPELR (2215) 1 at 25. The exemplary damages are usually awarded if the defendant?s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence and contumelious disregard of the plaintiff?s rights. See ODOGU v A. G FEDERATION (1996) LPELR (2228) 1 at 12 and G. K. F INVESTMENT NIGERIA LTD V. NITEL PLC (2009) LPELR (1294) 1 at 31 ? 32? per OGAKWU, JCA (P.37, PARAS. A ? E).? (UNDERLINING MINE)
See further the case of WILLIAMS v DAILY TIMES (Supra). PER OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBABTIVE VALUE THERETO
In OSAYABAMWEN v IRORO & ORS (2016) LPELR ? 40804 (CA); this Court on the duty of the trial Court as regards perception, evaluation and findings of fact; the procedure for evaluation of evidence held thus;
“But first what amounts to proper appraisal of evidence or more appropriately proper evaluation of evidence. In ONI vs. JOHNSON (2015) LPELR (24545) 1 at 35-38 or (2015) 4 C.A.R 273 at 297-299 this Court stated: “There is a duty on the Trial Court to receive all available relevant evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence. A finding of fact will entail both perception and evaluation. See OLUFOSOYE v. OLORUNFEMI (1989) 1 SC (PT 1) 29 or (1989) LPELR (2615) 1 at 9, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD v. AJEH (2011) 10 NWLR (PT 1255) 574 at 592 and WACHUKWU v. OWUNWANNE (2011) LPELR (3466) 1 at 50-51?..: ‘Therefore in determining which is heavier, the judge will naturally have regard to the following: (a) whether the evidence is admissible; (b) whether it is relevant; (c) whether it is credible; (d) whether it is conclusive; and (e) whether it is more probable than that given by the other party.’ It would appear that evaluation of evidence is basically the assessment of the facts by the Trial Court to ascertain which of the parties to a case before it has more preponderant evidence to sustain his claim. See OYADIJI v. OLANIYI (2005) 5 NWLR (PT 919) and AMEYO v. OYEWOLE (2008) LPELR (3768) 1 at 9. The evaluation involves a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. A Court of trial has the duty to consider the evidence adduced in respect of any facts on which issues were joined, decide which evidence to prefer on the basis of how the evidence preponderates and then make logical and consequential findings of facts. See ADEYEYE v. AJIBOYE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 61) 432 at 451 and STEPHEN v. THE STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 46) 978 at 1005. There must be on record how the Court arrived at its conclusion of preferring one piece of evidence to the other. See AKINTOLA v. ADEGBITE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1891 at 1898.” In precise terms, evaluation of evidence is the assessment of facts by the Court to ascertain which of the parties to a case has more preponderant evidence.”
per OGAKWU, J.C.A (PP. 21-25, PARAS. C-A).
See AJIGBOTOSHO v RCC (2018) LPELR – 44774 (SC); XTOUDOS SERVCES NIG LTD v TAISEI (WA) LTD & ANOR (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1003)533 @ 551B ? E. PER OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This an appeal against the judgment delivered by the Honourable Justice M. O Onalaja on the 26th of February, 1993. The learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the Respondent by awarding to the Respondent the sum of N540, 685, 246. 00 as special damages and the sum of N 10,000, 000. 00 as exemplary damages. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Appellants lodged the present appeal against it by virtue of notice of appeal dated 5th day of April, 1993.
The Appellants brief of argument dated 29th January, 2008, filed on the 31/1/ 2008 and deemed 11/11/2009 was settled by B. A. Onuoha of Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe & Belgore; and three issues were raised for determination;
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have awarded exemplary damages in the sum of N10,000,000.00 to the Respondent?
2. Whether from the state of the pleadings and the totality of evidence before the Court below, the Respondent had proven its entitlement to the award of special damages.
3. Whether the Judgment is against the weight of evidence.
1
The Respondent filed its brief of argument on 3/3/2011 and deemed on the 9/4/13, which was settled by Rotimi Aladesanmi of Rotimi Aladesanmi & Co., where the Respondent adopted the same issues raised in the Appellants? brief of argument.
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
The Appellants? counsel argued issue one under the following sub ?headings;
i. THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGE: The Learned Judge awarded the sum of N10, 000, 000.00 as exemplary damage against the Appellants.
Secondly, the Appellants contended that the award of the sum of N10, 000, 000.00 as exemplary damage is erroneous, as the Respondent was only entitled to nominal damages, and he relied on the case of UMUNNA v OKWURAIWE (1978) VOL. II NSCC 319 at 326 PARA 25, where the Apex Court adopted a passage from VOL. 12 of the HALSBURY?S LAWS OF ENGLAND 4TH EDITION PAGE 460, PARA 1170.
It was further submitted by the Appellants that the special damages pleaded by the Respondent was awarded by the lower Court, and that the object of the award of trespass is not to punish the defendant, he relied on the cases; ILOUNO v CHIEKWE (1991) 2 NWLR (PART 173) 316 at 326
2
D; LSDPC v FOREIGN FINANCE CORP. (1987) 1 NWLR (PART 50) 413 at 460 A; LADEJOBI v SHODIPO (1989) 1 NWLR (PART 99) 596 at 610.
It was submitted thirdly that the lower Court should have awarded nominal damages against the Appellant; he urged the Court to set aside the award of N10, 000, 000. 00 exemplary damage and substitute an award of nominal damages.
On issue 2, the Appellants disagreed with the findings of the Court under different topics, firstly that the Amended statement of claim in paragraphs 60b v, vii and vii, which stated values including, market value of the items mentioned in those paragraphs were not stated separately, he referred to the Apex Court cases of SOMMER v F.H. A (1992) 1 NWLR (PART 219) 548 at 560 D and G; F.H.A v SOMMER (1986) 1 NWLR (PART 17) 533 at 545 G; NIGERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS v OGUNBIYI (1992) 7 NWLR (PART 255) 543, PAGE 559 F ? G.
Counsel stated that the failure to state the particulars of the various items of special damage as well as their respective values was fatal to the case of the Respondents.
?
The Appellants in addition, submitted that the evidence of the Respondent?s witnesses did
3
not itemise the particulars of the items allegedly damaged but given in general about the things in the porta-cabins; the Architect only stated that the porta-cabins were furnished. He referred to the following cases; SOMMER v FHA (Supra); FHA v SOMMER (Supra); OKUNZUA v AMOSU (1992) 6 NWLR (PART 248) 416 at 432 G and CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS 15TH EDITION, PAGE 237 PARAGRAPH 5 ? 29 Appellant further submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction, which is, normally the market value of identical or essentially similar goods.
The counsel submitted that on evidence of special damage pleaded, the trial judge stated in his judgment that there ?were no supportive invoices? and that the evidence he relied on were mere ?ipsedixits of the plantiffs?, when documentary evidence should have been relied upon. Although, the Appellants conceded that there where instances were documentary evidence was not necessary to prove special damages, it did not apply in this case. He relied on the cases of SPDC v TIEBO VII (2005) 9 NWLR (PART 931) 439 at 462 H ? C; THE STATE v AJIE (2000) 11 NWLR (PART
4
678) 343 at 449 ? 450 H ? A; NITEL (Supra) at 560 G ? H; OKORONKWO v CHUKWEKE (1992) NWLR (PART 261) 175 at 195 A ? B.
The Appellant submitted that the invoices tendered in proof of special damages (Exhibits 6 ? 10 A) only related to items which were on the premises of the Respondent, which were not in proof of any of the pleaded particulars in the claim and that this cannot cure the failure to particularize each item in the pleadings and its price.
Appellants submitted that the Respondent cannot be said to have led credible evidence in proof of its special damages.
Exhibits 6 ? 7A, 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D are in hard currency- Dutch Guilders. The rate of exchange to the Naira at the time of the accrual of the cause of action was not stated and this shows that the Respondent had not been able to prove special damages. He also stated that Exhibit 20 with relation to the porta-cabins had disparities in relation to the number of the porta-cabins which was pleaded and the testimonies of the Respondent?s witnesses.
?
Appellants submitted that in light of the above the Respondent did not prove the special damages he
5
suffered. He referred to learned authors CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS 15TH EDITION, at PAGES 238 ? 239 PARAGRAPHS 5 ? 30 TO 5 ? 31 and MCGREGOR ON DAMAGES 15TH EDITION PAGE 214 PARAGRAPH 343, to the point that a plaintiff must satisfy the Court as to the fact of damages and its amount, and there is no evidence before the Court as to these, therefore the plaintiff made out no case for special damages. He relied on the case of A.G OYO STATE V FAIRLAKES HOTELS (NO.2) (1989) 5 NWLR (PART121) 255 at 278.
Counsel submitted further that the findings of the lower Court were not borne out of the pleadings or the evidence before it, so should be struck down, he relied on the cases of TOTAL v AJAYI (2004) 3 NWLR (PART 860) 270 at 296 E ? F; GBADAMOSI v GOVERNOR OF OYO (2006) 13 NWLR (PART 997) 363 at 374 A ? C; SALAMI v SAVANNAH BANK (1990) 2 NWLR (PART 130) 106 at 126 H; LSPDC v FOREIGN FINANCE (Supra) at 459 B ? E.
On issue 3, on the contention that the Judgment was against the weight of the Evidence; Counsel submitted that had the lower Court properly assessed and evaluated the evidence of the respondent as regard special
6
damages and the pieces of evidence from both parties on the issue of the porta-cabins, the judgment awarding special damages would not have been made. He referred to MOGAJI v ODOFIN (1978) VOL 1 NSCC 275.
RESPONDENT?S SUBMISSIONS
On issue 1, the Respondent submitted on the contention that the lower Court ought not have awarded exemplary damages, that it is settled law that award of general as well as exemplary damages is entirely at the discretion of the Court and that the Court will not interfere with such an award unless certain conditions were involved. He referred to UNION BANK LIMITED v ODUSOTE (1995) 9 NWLR PT. 421, PG 558; NWOBOSI v ACB LTD. (1995) 6 NWLR PT. 404, PG 658; OBI OKUDO v IGP & ORS (1998) 1 NWLR PT. 533 at 336. The onus falls on the Appellants to show a genuine legal basis within the certain conditions mentioned by the Respondent before this Court can interfere with the exemplary damages made by the lower Court. He referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of WILLIAMS v DAILY TIMES (1990) 1 NWLR PT. 124 at 30 ? 31.
Respondent submitted that the lower Court in its decision considered
7
the definition of Exemplary damages as contained in Black?s Law dictionary sixth Edition Centennial edition 1891 ? 1991, Page 390, and the principles pertaining to the award of exemplary damages were considered by the trial judge, who made reference to the following cases as appropriate judicial authority; MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS v SHUGABA ABDURAHAMAN DARMAN (1982) 3 NCLR 915; DR GABRIEL OLUSOGA ONAGORUWA v INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (1991) 15 NWLR PT. 193 PG 593 at 647 ? 648.
The Respondent further relied on the following decisions; EZEANI v EJIDIKE (1964) ALL NLR 402, ELIOCHIN NIG. LTD v MBADIWE (1986) 1 NWLR PT. 4 PG 47; AREC v AMAYE (1986) 3 NWLR PT. 31 PG 653.
The Respondent submitted that another principle why exemplary damages are awarded is to teach the defendants that tort does not pay, he referred to the case of ODIBA v AZEGE (1998) 4 NWLR PT. 566 PG. 370 at 385; THE FEDERAL MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v SHUGABA (Supra).
On issue 2, the Respondent submitted that it was settled law that an appellate Court will not interfere with an award of damages unless it is settled that the lower Court acted on
8
wrong principles of law or that the amount awarded was so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages which the claimants are entitled to, he referred to the cases of; SOLEH BONEH OVERSEAS NIG. LTD v AYODELE (1989) 1 NWLR PT. 99, WILLIAMS v DAILY TIMES (1990) 1 NWLR PT. 124 PG 1 at 58; OGU v IHEJIRIKA (1991) 4 NWLR PT. 185 PG 388; EZE v LAWAL (1997) NWLR PT. 487, PG 333 at 347.
He further submitted that the test to whether a trial judge in an award of damages reached the Judgment on correct principles of law is an objective one, he referred to the case of NZERIBE v DAVE ENGINEERING CO. LTD (1994) 8 NWLR PT. 361, PG 124; JARMARKANI TRANSPORT v ABEBE (1963) 1 ALL NLR 180.
The Respondent stated that it is now settled law that a claim for damages must be proved strictly. It is required that the person claiming should establish his entitlement to that type of damages by credible evidence of such a character as would suggest that he indeed is entitled to an award under that head, otherwise the general law of evidence as to proof by preponderance or weight in civil cases would apply, he referred to the cases of ODULALA v HADAD
9
(1973) ALL NLR PG 191 at 196; OSHINJINRIN v ELIAS (1970) ALL NLR 153 at 156. The Apex Court also stated in IMANA v ROBINSON (1979) 3 & 4 SC 1 at 23.
The action in the lower Court was one in tort. The principle guiding Courts in considering an award of damages in an action founded on tort is basically ?restituto in integrum?. This has been the illustrated in the case of SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. NIG LTD v TIEBO VII (1996) 4 NWLR PT. 445 PG 657 at 680, and he referred to the case of AGBANELO v UNION BANK (2002) 23 WRN 1 at 27; (2000) 7 NWLR PT. 666 PG. 534 at 561 ? 562.
The Respondent submitted that the issue of admissibility of any evidence cannot be argued before this Honourable court as there was no objection to the admissibility of the salient evidence at the trial, neither was there an appeal on this. It is also settled that objection to admissibility of evidence must be taken when it is being tendered, save on grounds of statutory exclusion. He referred to ETIM v EKPE (1983) 3 SC 12 at 36 ? 37; SADHWANI v SADHWANI (NIG) LTD (1989) 2 NWLR PT. 101 PG 72 at 83. The Respondent distinguished the decisions/cases cited
10
by the Appellants in submitting that special damages must be specially pleaded and the prices properly evidenced, to show the disparities between the decisions and this instant case.
He also stated without conceding, that assuming the Appellants? allegation that there were insufficient particulars of the items claimed, it is his humble submission that where evidence of damages is not challenged through cross examination and unconverted by other evidence, and is not by itself incredible, the Court is entitled to accept it and act upon it. He referred to the cases of ADISA v AFUYE (1994) 1 NWLR PT. 318 PG 75 at 88 ? 89; ONWUKA v OMOGUI (1992) 3 NWLR PT. 230 PG 393; AMERICAN CYANAMID CO v VITALITY PHARMACEUTICALS (1991) 2 NWLR PT. 171 PG. 15; NZERIBE v DAVE ENG CO. LTD (1994) 8 NWLR PT. 361 PG. 124.
It was further submitted by the Respondent that where a plaintiff who claims special damages pleads same without sufficient particulars, the remedy of the defendant is to ask for particulars of damage. If the defendant fails to avail himself of that remedy, it would be too late to complain at the Appellate Court about the claim lacking
11
particulars. He relied on the cases of OSUJI V ISIOCHA (1989) NWLR PT 111 PG 623 at 638; AKINTUNDE v OJEIKERE (1971) I NWLR PG 91 at 96 ? 97.
The Appellants contended that the applicable rate of exchange to determine the amount due to the respondent is the rate at the time the cause of action accrued, that this flies in the face of the established and settled principle to be considered when considering an award of damages in an action in Tort. The essence of restitution in integrum is to restore the claimant to the position he would have been if the wrong did not occur. The judgment of the lower Court does not necessarily accord with restitution in integrum, as it would just mollify the Respondent for his losses but can never restore him to the position he would have been had the tort not occurred.
On the Appellants? contention that the lower Court ought not to have relied on the ipsi dixit of the Respondent?s witnesses, it is the submission of the Respondent that the lower Court was perfectly entitled to rely on the said oral testimony as was the decision of this Honorable Court in the case of ADISA v AFUYE (1994) 1 NWLR PT. 318
12
PG 75 at 88. The Respondent therefore urges the Court to resolve the issue against the Appellants.
On issue 3, the Respondent conveniently relied on the foregoing arguments in respect of Issues 1 and 2 to clearly illustrate the fact that the lower Court rightly found that the Respondent?s case was proved to the extent by which it succeeded. The Appellants had not established any justification for an interference with any of the findings by the learned trial judge; the Respondent therefore urged that this finding be affirmed by this Honourable Court.
APPELLANT?S REPLY
The Appellants in their reply brief, contended that they were not required to cross examine where the pleading was inadequate, and referred to the cases of SOMMERS & ORS v FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (1992) 1 NWLR PART 219, 548 at 560 to 561; OLAWEPO v SARAKI (2009) ALL FWLR (PART 498) 294 C ?D, F- G; MOHAMMED DELE BELGORE, SAN & 2 ORS v ABDULFATAH AHMED & 4 ORS (UNREPORTED) COURT OF APPEAL, ILORIN DIVISION, 7TH JANUARY, 2012; OWENA BANK (NIG) LTD v NIGERIAN SWEETS AND CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD AND ANOR, (1993) 4 NWLR (PART 290) 689 at 713 E ? G;
13
ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE v C.N ONUSELOGU ENTERPRISES LIMITED (1987) 4 NWLR (PART 66) 547 at 564.
On the issue of exemplary damages, the Respondent addressed the issue and cited authority without addressing specifically the authority of LADEJOBI v SHODIPO (1989) 1 NWLR PART 99 596 at 610 cited by the Appellants in page 5 of its brief, that exemplary damages is not applicable to trespass. Counsel urged the Court to grant the Appeal.
RESOLUTION
Both parties adopted the same issues for determination. Therefore, the issues would be critically analyzed in resolving this appeal, for clarity purposes, the issues would be reproduced hereunder;
i. Whether the learned judge was right to have awarded exemplary damages in the sum of N10, 000, 000. 00 to the Respondent?
ii. Whether from the state of the pleadings and the totality of evidence before the Court below, the Respondent had proven its entitlement to the award of special damages.
iii. Whether the judgment is against the weight of evidence.
The Apex Court has set a standard in the case of THOMPSON & ANOR v ADEFOPE 1969 LPELR- 25560(SC) when it held thus;
14
“When an appellant seeks to argue that damages are excessive he has to bear in mind that this Court does not upset an award of damages merely because we might have awarded a different figure if this Court had heard the case itself, but the appellant must show that the trial Judge proceeded upon some wrong principle of law or that the award was an entirely erroneous estimate. See Zik’s Press Ltd. v. Ikoku (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 188 which was followed by this Court in Solomons v. Adiele SC.626/66 of the 6th of December, 1968, and Agaba v. Otobusin [1961] All N.L.R. 299 and also the recent decision of this Court in Lagos City Council v. Ogunbiyi SC.127/67 of the 11th July, 1969 where we said- “Counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount awarded as damages under this head is excessive and unreasonable and that this Court ought to interfere. We do not wish to disguise the fact that the question of quantum of damages is always a difficult problem that the law or the Judge has to face. One cannot minimise the extremely difficult task of a Judge when he has to assess damages in these cases; and this Court, as a Court of appeal is always reluctant to interfere with
15
awards made by Judges unless the award made is excessively high or unreasonably low. All the same, there are no special criteria whereby the appeal Court is to judge what is excessively high or unreasonably low. All awards however should include compensation for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and the loss of amenities of life.”
per LEWIS ,J.S.C ( PP. 10-11, PARAS. C-E)
See ODUWOLE & ORS v WEST (2010) LPELR – 2263 (SC).
It is the contention of the Appellant that the award of the sum of N10,000,000.00 as exemplary award was erroneous, and the Respondent was only entitled to nominal damages.
In determining this issue, recourse would have to be taken to what Exemplary damages are; the lower Court in page 440 of the Records before this Court defined what exemplary damages are by adopting the definition in BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY SIXTH EDITION CENTENNIAL EDITION 1891 ? 1991 page 390;
?Exemplary damages are damages on an increased scale, awarded to the Plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his property less, where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression,
16
malice fraud, or wanton and wicked conduct on the part of the defendant and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of his feelings, shame, degradation or other aggravations of the original wrong, or else to punish the Defendant for his evil behavior or to make an example of him, for which reason they are also called ?punitive? or ?punitory? damages or ?vindictive? damages. Unlike compensatory or actual damages, punitive or exemplary damages are based upon an entirely different public policy consideration, that or punishing the defendant or of setting an example for similar wrong doers as above noted. In cases in which it is proved that a defendant has acted willfully, maliciously, or fraudulently, a plaintiff may be awarded exemplary damages in addition to compensatory or actual damages. Damages other than compensatory damages which may be awarded against a person to punish him for outrageous conduct. Such are given as an enhancement of compensatory damages because of wanton reckless malicious or oppressive character of acts complained.”
This honourable Court also recently had a chance
17
to expatiate on what constitutes exemplary damages in the case of EZEAGU & ORS v NWONU (2016) LPELR ? 40164 (CA), where it held per YAKUBU, JCA thus;
?Now what is the essence of exemplary damages? The Supreme court in Chief F. R. A Williams v Daily Times of Nigeria Ltd (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 124) 1; (1990) 1 SC 23; (1990) LPELR ? 3847 (SC) at pages 45 ? 47 per his Lordship Eso, JSC, succinctly stated: ?Exemplary damages are usually awarded where statutes prescribe them and apart from this, they are only awarded for two categories to wit (1) Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the government. See Lord Delvin in Rookes v Bernard (1964) A. C 1230 matters for compensation are different from matters for punishment. In Mc Caney v Associated Newspapers (1965) 2 Q. B. 104, Pearson, L. J. held ?Compensatory damages ?may include not only actual pecuniary loss and anticipated loss or any social disadvantages which result or may be thought likely to result from the wrong which has done?. This is not punishment. Punishment is best illustrated in the dictum of Lord Hailsham in Broome v Cassel
18
(1972) A. C 1070, where Lord Hailsham regarded the principle of exemplary damages as teaching the defendant that tort does not pay. Lord Devlin has formulated in Rookes v Bernard that exemplary damages includes cases where the defendant with a cynical disregard for plaintiff?s rights has calculated that the money to be made out of his wrong will probably exceed the damages at risk. All these, that is in regard to exemplary damages include some deliberations that warrant punishment. (2) Where the defendant?s act which has been held to be tortuous was done with a guilty knowledge, the motive being that the chances of economic advantage outweigh the chances of economic or even (perhaps) physical penalty. (Another act of deliberateness)?” Further see Anthony Odiba v Tule Azege (1998) 2215 (SC); (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 556) 370; G. K. F. Investment Nig Ltd v NITEL Plc (2009) LPELR ? 1294 (SC); (2009) 15 NWLR (pt. 1164) 344. Thus, simply put, the award exemplary damages is primarily punitive particularly where the conduct of the defendant has been shown or demonstrated to be tainted or coloured with malice, fraud, insolence, flagrant, disregard
19
for the plaintiff?s human rights and dignity or disregarding every right principle which distinguishes the action of civilized men from the primordial instincts of retaliation for a perceived wrong done by the plaintiff against the defendant. Hence, exemplary damages are meant to punish the defendant for breaching the legal right of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is more than compensating the person whose rights have been adjudged as having been breached. It can be called an extra compensation, but certainly not double compensation as submitted by the learned Attorney General for the Cross ? Respondents.?
Furthermore, this honourable Court stated in OKAFOR v LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2016) LPELR ? 41066 (CA) the guiding principles for award of exemplary damages thus;
?The law is settled beyond peradventure that in order to justify an award of exemplary damages, it is not sufficient to show simply that the defendant has to be shown to be high ? handed, outrageous, insolent, vindictive, oppressive or malicious and showing contempt of the plaintiff?s rights, or disregarding every principle which actuates
20
the conduct of civilized men. See ODIBA v AZEGE (1998) LPELR (2215) 1 at 25. The exemplary damages are usually awarded if the defendant?s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence and contumelious disregard of the plaintiff?s rights. See ODOGU v A. G FEDERATION (1996) LPELR (2228) 1 at 12 and G. K. F INVESTMENT NIGERIA LTD V. NITEL PLC (2009) LPELR (1294) 1 at 31 ? 32? per OGAKWU, JCA (P.37, PARAS. A ? E).? (UNDERLINING MINE)
See further the case of WILLIAMS v DAILY TIMES (Supra).
The above mentioned authorities explained in details what constitutes exemplary damages and why it is awarded. The facts of this appeal gleaned from the records before this Court in pages 447- 448, lines 18 ? 31, 1 ? 4;
?Whilst the order of interim injunction and interlocutory injunction were still pending and judgment Exhibit 2 the Defendants jointly and severally invaded the plaintiff?s operational base workyard at 1A, OZUMBA MBADIWE aforesaid wherein they carried out the atrocities complained about. On their nefarious activities the
21
attention of the Defendants were drawn to the order of interlocutory injunction and the declarations with injunction granted in Exhibits 2 the Defendants ignored the order and carried on the wanton destruction of plaintiff?s properties. Through Exhibit 21, the attention of lagos State Attorney General was drawn to the breach of the order of this Court. That Exhibit 21 was dated 1st March, 1989. Notwithstanding Exhibit 21, the Defendants on 14th March, 1989 held the crucial meeting for evacuation of plaintiff on the Land as shown in Exhibit 24. The evacuation was to be carried out with 25 armed ? men. This was in complete disregard of Exhibit 21 during the pendency of the motion for interlocutory injunction and also the order in Exhibit 1.?
From the above excerpt, it is obvious the Defendants blatantly disregarded the interim injunction when it invaded the property of the Plaintiff and carried out it destructive activities, thereby resorting to constituting an affront to the judicial system in Nigeria. See OJUKWU v GOVT OF LAGOS STATE (Supra).
The destructive activities of the Defendants were captured on video in Exhibits 18 to 18 E,
22
making it harder for the lower Court to even disregard its actions.
I completely agree that the facts of this case is on all fours in line with the guiding principles for awarding Exemplary damages in the above cited cases, from Exhibit 18A, B, & C which are video recordings of the demolition carried out. I, therefore cannot help but agree that it is a case deserving of exemplary damages and even more, being a government functionary. I find the evaluation of the lower Court in this aspect unassailable.
I resolve issue one in favour of the Respondent.
On issue 2, the Respondent claimed Special damages against the Appellants, whose particulars are enumerated in Page 52, Paragraph 60b (I ? xii) and paragraph 30 in page 42 of the record of appeal.
The law/condition precedent laid down before an award of special damages is made has been reiterated in a plethora of cases, and the Apex Court in the cases of NNPC v CLIFCO NIG LTD (2011) LPELR ? 2022(SC), where it held per RHODES ? VIVOUR, JSC (P. 30, PARAS. B ? E) thus;
?Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a
23
claim for special damages it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the Court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court.?
Also in the case of B.B APUGO & SONS LIMITED v ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD (2016) LPELR ? 40598 (SC), it was held that;
?The law is trite that special damages must be strictly proved by the person who claims to be entitled to them. The nature of the proof depends on the circumstances of each case. See Okunzua v Amosu (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 416 at 432 E ? G. See also: Oshinjinrin & Ors. v Elias & Ors. (1970) 1 ALL NLR 151 at 156, where it was held inter alia, that a person claiming special damages must establish his entitlement to an award under that head, otherwise the
24
general law of evidence as to proof by preponderance or weight usual in civil cases operates.”
per KEKERE ? EKUN, JSC (PP. 60 ? 61, PARAS. D ? A) (UNDERLINING MINE)
The ?ultimate standard? is for the claim for special damages to be specifically and strictly proved, the Appellants are of the opinion that this standard was not met by the Respondent or properly considered by the trial judge. The Appellants are of the opinion that the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the Respondent and its witnesses was not sufficient to amount the special damages awarded.
I have examined the statement of claim at page 42-53 in paragraph 30 – 31 and Amended reply of the Respondent at page 316 of the record and paragraph 9-10.
?
The plaintiff states in reply to paragraph 49 of the Amended Defence and counter claim that the prices quoted on the invoices represent the true and exact values of some of the Plaintiffs properties destroyed damages, stolen, demolished or carted away from No. 1A, Ozumba Madiwe Street Victoria Island. The plaintiff states that documents could not be traced on they were all destroyed and burnt by
25
the Defendants. The evidence is at page 140-151, line 7 from the re – swearing of PW1 Captain Adekunle Harrison kuti where it is recorded that the video coverage Exhibit 18A & 18B, 18C showing movement of about 5 portacabins (including damaged ones) taken out of the premises by agents of the ministry showing the demolition in Exhibit 18c at page 146, two additional portacabins are driven out, the Court recorded 7 portacabins including the refrigerated portacabin being taken out.
This to my mind is visual capture which authenticates the case of the plaintiff even though it was done at night; this is more than a visit to locus.
In his evidence, he stated that the invoices of the items damaged were carted away by the vehicles of the Appellants which was seen on the video captured, he tendered having laid foundation for the computerized invoice of goods purchased but carted away by the Appellants, it was tendered unopposed and unchallenged and marked Exhibits 19 and 19A, Exhibits 6-10-10A-K represents foreign exchange value on invoices of goods ordered by plaintiff and later destroyed by Appellants. He testified that after the destruction they
26
contacted some of their suppliers through various embassies to furnish them with invoices of goods purchased from them and these are fax documents which speak for themselves, he said some suppliers could not be traced but Exhibit 6, 10-10-0A ?K are FOB prices and its shown on invoices that they were supplied. He said that to replace them would cost 500% due to global inflation and the Naira has devalued to a considerate extent and cost of shipping and customs tariff have gone up.
On the portacabin, he said the suppliers could not be traced but tendered a letter of putting them on the house to allow administration function, he sought help from DIYA FATIMILEHIN & CO admitted as Exhibit 20 he said they had over a 100 portacabin as they were brought in as CKD and coupled in Nigeria and therefore replaceable value will be much more than when he purchased them. Furthermore, he mentioned 1250 KVA sound proof & 350 KVA generators carted away, compressor and dumper this was the gleaned summarized version of what was put before the Court on the extent of damages, it is important to note that this evidence was unshaken and exhibits largely unopposed.
27
The learned trial judge patiently documented the visual video in his judgment at page 337 and more particularly at page 348 ? 349, line 8, all evidence of the plaintiff on the extent of damages and at page 427 the lower Court stated the principle of special damages and considered paragraphs 30, 60 – 60A, 60 (I-XII), of Amended statement particularized 63 xi (1,2,3,) summing up break down in paragraph 30, 60, 60A, 60(I – xii) as claim for itemized figures and was satisfied with the pleading and itemized figures, at page 431, he reviewed the evidence of pw2 & 5 (expert evidence in finance capital market money foreign exchange transaction which was not challenged by cross examination or countered by superior evidence) and who gave vivid contents of stock in the warehouses official records destroyed; page 434 of record. I find a copious examination of evidence on special damages not forgetting the video coverage not from the Respondent but from Appellant?s ministry of information showing and supporting items demolished. I cannot fault the evaluation, when the proof had been adduced it is for the defendants to adduce evidence to counter same
28
and not having bothered but put up a sham defence and evidence it leaves the lower Court no option but to do the needful.
However, despite the submissions put up by the Appellants on this issue, I am reluctant to interfere with the award for special damages by the trial Court.
In SPDC v OKONEDO 2007 LPELR -8198 (CA); in setting the standards of proof in special damages stated thus;
“It is settled law that special damages must be strictly proved. Strict proof here means no more than adducing credible evidence in support of the claim. It does not mean an unusual proof or proof beyond reasonable doubt. See A.C.B. Ltd. v. Neka B.B.B. Nig. Co. Ltd. (supra). Strict proof in the con of special damages means no more than a proof as would readily lend itself to quantification or assessment. Where a plaintiff pleads special damages with particularity and give some evidence of the special damages and the defendant does not challenge or contradict the evidence given, the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof and unless the evidence given is of such a quality that no reasonable Tribunal can accept it, the evidence ought to be accepted. This is so
29
because where evidence is called by the plaintiff in a civil case is neither challenged nor contradicted, his onus of proof is discharged on minimal proof. Guinness (Nig.) Plc v. Nwoke (supra) what this means is that the Court should give consideration to the evidence offered in support of a claim for special damages and if the accepted evidence possess such a probative value as preponderates the case in favour of the person then the award would be justified. In the instant appeal, the appellant did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence of the respondent on the condition of the damage to the respondent’s properties. The respondent in his evidence in chief stated thus at page 29 line 30 and page 30 lines 1-14 of the record of appeal. “On the 8th day after the judgment myself and L.U. Ovromoh, Esq. came to Court premises, after the expiration of the seven days contained in the order of the said judgment, and carried away my properties in course of which we discovered that the properties were badly damaged because they were exposed to harsh weather of sun and rain. The executive chairs were torn; dining chairs broken; the four tyres of my car were
30
badly damaged; some of the things in the car were damaged and require replacement; the tub was bad; the master cylinder was eaten up by rust; the body of the car was eaten up by rust and the paint of the car was washed away; the engine of the car could no longer start and upon examination by the mechanic it was found that the engine needed to be overhauled.” The respondent tendered Exhibits ‘J’ and ‘J1’ as receipts for the payment of the bill for the repairs on the vehicle. He further testified he lost revenue that could have accrued from the car hire which was put at N633,500.00 at the rate of N3,500 per day. In his evidence PW1, the mechanic that repaired the respondent’s car testified at page 47 lines 1 – 8 of the record of appeal as follows:- ‘The engine was overhauled and put in good order. We worked on the brakes and the general system, and the body, works; panel beating of the car; upholstery and spraying. I carried out the repairs of the vehicle. Plaintiff paid fully for the work, I did on the car. I issued the plaintiff receipt for the money, he paid to me. Exhibits J and J1 are my receipts which I issued for the repairs of the car of the plaintiff.”
31
It is submitted by the respondent’s counsel that by the pleadings and evidence before the lower Court, the respondent satisfied the requirement that special damages must be proved, placing reliance on the following cases. Nzeribe v. Dave Engr. Co. Ltd. (supra) and Tab Ass Ltd. v. Akwuzie (Supra). The lower Court accepts as proved the payment of N10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira) which PW3 confirms in his evidence under the claim for special damages. The award of N10,000.00 (Ten thousand Naira) special damages is therefore proper and not one that can be termed as unethical and an affront to public policy.”
per ABBA AJI, J.C.A ( PP. 44-53, PARAS. C-A)
On issue 3, the judgment is not against the evidence before the Court, and the case of MOGAJI v ODOFIN (1978) VOL 1 NSCC 275 to which reference was made to by both parties in their brief of argument as a stare decisis and the learned judge in its judgment, at page 426, lines 6 ? 14, applied the above case as an authority in its judgment thus;
?Applying A.R. MOGAJI V ODOFIN 1978 SC 91 ? 98, I hold that the legendary scale tilts in favour of plaintiff and I find all the Defendants
32
liable in trespass in that on the 7th and 8th 1989 and between 22nd November, 1989 to February, 1990 and the 1st Defendant NTDA through Exhibit 24 indirectly participated in wanton destruction of Plaintiffs properties upon the settled agreement that the plaintiff be evacuated on the land for which 25 armed men were to be used to carry out the nefarious activities
The Appellants strongest contention is that the trial judge did not properly assess and evaluate the evidence of the Respondent as regards proof of its special damages, and more particularly had he evaluated the pieces of evidence from both sides on the issue of porta – cabins.
However, the learned trial Court in its judgment at pages 425 ? 426, lines 19 ? 27, 1 ? 2 held thus;
From the foregoing, I believe and accept the evidence of 2nd PW and 7th PW that the staff of Environmental Task Force on Sanitation of Lagos State led by Capt. Onoriode and Capt. Giwa were the persons who carried out the malicious and wanton destruction of plaintiff?s properties situate, lying and being at 1A, Ozumba Mbadiwe Street, Victoria Island, Lagos,
33
where there is any conflict as between the testimonies of the plaintiff?s witnesses and that of the Defendants witnesses, I prefer and accept watching their demeanors in the witness box that 2nd PW, 6th PW and 7th PW impressed me and struck me as truthful witnesses.
In OSAYABAMWEN v IRORO & ORS (2016) LPELR ? 40804 (CA); this Court on the duty of the trial Court as regards perception, evaluation and findings of fact; the procedure for evaluation of evidence held thus;
“But first what amounts to proper appraisal of evidence or more appropriately proper evaluation of evidence. In ONI vs. JOHNSON (2015) LPELR (24545) 1 at 35-38 or (2015) 4 C.A.R 273 at 297-299 this Court stated: “There is a duty on the Trial Court to receive all available relevant evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence. A finding of fact will entail both perception and evaluation. See OLUFOSOYE v. OLORUNFEMI (1989) 1 SC (PT 1) 29 or (1989) LPELR (2615) 1 at 9, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER LTD v. AJEH (2011) 10 NWLR (PT
34
1255) 574 at 592 and WACHUKWU v. OWUNWANNE (2011) LPELR (3466) 1 at 50-51?..: ‘Therefore in determining which is heavier, the judge will naturally have regard to the following: (a) whether the evidence is admissible; (b) whether it is relevant; (c) whether it is credible; (d) whether it is conclusive; and (e) whether it is more probable than that given by the other party.’ It would appear that evaluation of evidence is basically the assessment of the facts by the Trial Court to ascertain which of the parties to a case before it has more preponderant evidence to sustain his claim. See OYADIJI v. OLANIYI (2005) 5 NWLR (PT 919) and AMEYO v. OYEWOLE (2008) LPELR (3768) 1 at 9. The evaluation involves a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. A Court of trial has the duty to consider the evidence adduced in respect of any facts on which issues were joined, decide which evidence to prefer on the basis of how the evidence preponderates and then make logical and consequential findings of facts. See ADEYEYE v. AJIBOYE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 61) 432 at 451 and
35
STEPHEN v. THE STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 46) 978 at 1005. There must be on record how the Court arrived at its conclusion of preferring one piece of evidence to the other. See AKINTOLA v. ADEGBITE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1891 at 1898.” In precise terms, evaluation of evidence is the assessment of facts by the Court to ascertain which of the parties to a case has more preponderant evidence.”
per OGAKWU, J.C.A (PP. 21-25, PARAS. C-A).
See AJIGBOTOSHO v RCC (2018) LPELR – 44774 (SC); XTOUDOS SERVCES NIG LTD v TAISEI (WA) LTD & ANOR (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1003)533 @ 551B ? E.
OGUAGBU, JSC held in the case of ODUWOLE & ORS v WEST (Supra) thus;
“It is now also firmly settled that in order to interfere or justify the interfering with any decision of a trial judge on the amount or quantum of damages awarded or awardable; the Appellate Court has to be convinced either, (a) that the judge acted upon some wrong principles of law or (b) that the amount awarded was so extremely high or very low or small as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled.” See – per Iguh, JSC in the case of
36
Nzeribe v Dave Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra) @ 140 of the NWLR also referred to and adopted in the case of The Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nig. Ltd. v. Chief Tiebo VII & 4 Ors. (2005) 4 SCNJ 39 @ 56 – per Oguntade, JSC (rtd.) (2005) 3 – 4 S.C 137 . The said award in the opinion of the Appellate Court, must be arbitrary, erroneous and based on a wrong exercise of discretion. In the case of Onwu & ors. v. Nka & ors. (cited and reproduced in the Respondent’s Brief and by the Court below at page 157 of the Records as Nka v. Onwu (1996) 40/41 LRCN 1303 @ 1336) it is also reported in (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.458) 1; ( 1996) 7 SCNJ 240 , where this Court held that a Court can increase the general damages awarded to a plaintiff, having regard to the fallen value or purchasing power of the Naira and in that case, the fluctuating currency. It further held inter alia, as follows: “……the appellant’s complaint can only be meaningful if they can show that the award is arbitrary, in which case, the Court of Appeal will and is duty-bound to intervene to set aside or reduce it (see S.W. Ubani-Ukoma v. GE Nicol (1962) 1 All NLR 105; Bashiru Bakare v. Alfred Jalleh (1969)
37
1 NMLR 262; Yesufu Maduga v. Hamza Kofar bai (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.62) 635 or that it is either excessive or erroneous (see Ekpe v. Fagbemi (1978) 3 S.C. 209) or further still, that there has been a wrong exercise of discretion in the award.”
On the whole, I resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
This appeal lacks merit and fails, it is hereby dismissed and the judgment of ONALAJA, J of the Lagos State High Court delivered on the 26th of February, 1993 is hereby affirmed.
The cost of N 500,000 is awarded against the Appellants.
BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my Lord ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI – ADEJUMO, J.C.A., just delivered with which I agree and adopt as mine, I have nothing more to add.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: My learned brother ABIMBOLA OSARUGIJE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO JCA afforded me the opportunity of reading before today a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered.
?I adopt the judgment as mine with nothing further to add.
38
Appearances:
B. A. ONUCHA WITH HIM, B. DANIEL AKEROFor Appellant(s)
ALADESANMI WITH HIM, C. OGUNDEJIFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
B. A. ONUCHA WITH HIM, B. DANIEL AKEROFor Appellant
AND
ALADESANMI WITH HIM, C. OGUNDEJIFor Respondent