REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE LIVING FAITH CHURCH (A.K.A WINNERS CHAPEL) v. PASTOR AKAH IKENNA
(2018)LCN/12083(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 25th day of October, 2018
CA/IB/330/2010
RATIO
DAMAGES: QUANTUM OF GENERAL DAMAGES
“It is trite that the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded and proved, for it is the loss which flows naturally from the Defendants act (i.e. the Appellant in this case) and it is generally presumed by law. The manner, therefore, in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and Judgment of a reasonable person. See the case of:- BADMUS & ANOR VS. ABEGUNDE (1999) LPELR 705 (SC). An appeal on general damages will only be altered if it is shown to be manifestly too high or manifestly too low or awarded on a wrong principle. See DUMEZ VS. OGBOLI (1972) 3 S.C. PAGE 196. Furthermore, general damages are never awarded as a largesse or out of sympathy born of extraneous considerations rather than, legal evidence of probative value adduced for the establishment of an actionable wrong or injury.” PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHERE THE COURT GRANT RELIEF NOT SOUGHT BY PARTY
“It is now elementary principle of law, as has long been settled by this Court in a plethora of cases that the Court of law has no business being a Father Christmas (Santa Claus) fancying granting relief or prayer which the parties have not specifically asked for or sought. in the case of THE NIGERIA AIR FORCE v. SHEKETE (2002) 1 SCNJ 35 AT 52-52 this Court held per my brother NIKI TOBI JSC as follows: ‘It is elementary law that a Court of law cannot grant an applicant a prayer not sought. A Court can only grant a relief or prayer sought. The moment a Court grants a relief or prayer not sought by the party, it expands the boundaries of litigation and unnecessarily instigates more litigation to the detriment of the parties and for no reason at all. The litigation is for the parties and not the Court. Therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to extend or expand the boundaries of litigation beyond what the parties have indicated to it. In other words, the Court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties. See further WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD v. IRON AND STEEL WORKERS UNION (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt 30) 617, EKPENYONG v. NYONG (1975) 2 SC 71 at 81; MAKANJUOLA v. BALOGUN (1989) 5 SC at 93.'” PER FOLASHADE OJO, J.C.A
JUSTICE
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FOLASHADE OJO justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE LIVING FAITH CHURCH (A.K.A WINNERS CHAPEL)Appellant(s)
AND
PASTOR AKAH IKENNARespondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court, Ota Judicial Division in Suit No:- HCT/312/07: BETWEEN PASTOR AKAH IKENNA VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE LIVING FAITH CHURCH (a.k.a WINNERS CHAPEL) delivered on the 27th day of October, 2009.
Briefly the facts of the case are that by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 25/10/2007 at the lower Court, the Respondent who was the Plaintiff claimed against the Appellant who was the Defendant as follows:-
(a) A declaration that he is entitled to
(i) 100% medical subsidy from the defendant/Appellant until he is given a clean bill of health.
(ii) An order compelling the Defendant/Appellant to pay him medical bills at the end of his treatment.
(iii) A Declaration that the Respondent is entitled to 11 months salary as terminal benefits which is (N501,600.00) Five Hundred and One Thousand Six Hundred Naira.
(iv) An order compelling the Defendant/Appellant to pay him the Respondent his eleven months salary which is put at (N501,600.00) Five Hundred and One Thousand Six Hundred Naira.
(v) An order restraining the Defendant/Appellant his agents, privies from ejecting him the respondent from his official quarters until all his entitlements are paid.
(vi) (N50,000,000.00) Fifty Million compensation for the injuries sustained in the course of his service to the Defendant/Appellant.
Pleadings were duly exchanged between the parties and the case was fixed for hearing.
At the conclusion of hearing, judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent in the following terms:-
(i) Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to 100% Medical subsidy from the Defendant until he is given a clean bill of health.
(ii) The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff medical bills, until he is given a clean bill of health.
(iii) It is also hereby declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to eleven (11) months salary as terminal benefits which is (N501,600.00) Five Hundred and One thousand, Six Hundred Naira.
(iv) The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff the sum of eleven (11) months salary which is part of (N501,600.00) Five Hundred and One Thousand, Six Hundred Naira being his terminal benefit
(v) The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the sum of N2.5 Million (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) compensation to the Plaintiff for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in the course of his service to the Defendant.
The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court appealed to this Court.
The learned Counsel for the appellant formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal, the said issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether from the pleadings and the evidence before the Court the learned trial Judge was right to have declared for the Plaintiff (now Respondent) that he is entitled to 100% medical subsidy and medical bills from the Defendant (Now Appellant) throughout his treatment and until he is given clean bill of health. (Distilled from Ground 1).
(2) Whether from the pleadings and evidence before the Court the learned trial Judge was right in awarding damages of N2.5million to compensate the Respondent for the injury allegedly sustained by him in the course of his employment to the Appellant in the first place. (Distilled from Ground 2)
(3) Assuming without conceding that the learned trial Judge was right in awarding damages in compensating the Respondent, was he right in awarding this exceptionally excessive amount of N2.5million as general damages in compensating the Respondent without having regard to the laid down principles of such awards(s) (Distilled from Ground 3).
On his own part, the learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated two (2) issues for the determination of the appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1) Whether the finding of fact by the learned trial Judge that the Respondent is entitled to One hundred per cent of his medical subsidy and bills is perverse and unsupported by evidence so as to require interference by the Court of Appeal. (Distilled from ground 1)
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was in error when he awarded the sum of (N2.5 million) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira as compensation to the Respondent (Distilled from Grounds 2 & 3).
At the hearing of this appeal on 17/9/2018 the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court delivered on 27/10/2009. The notice of Appeal was filed on 25/11/2009. The record of Appeal was transmitted on 10/12/2010 but it was deemed as properly transmitted on 30/1/2018. The additional grounds of appeal was filed on 25/3/2014 pursuant to an order of Court made on 19/3/2014.
The Appellants brief of argument was filed on 16/2/2018 while the Appellants reply brief was filed on 1/3/2018. The Appellants Cross Respondents brief of Argument was also filed on 1/3/2018.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said Appellants brief, Appellants reply brief of argument and the Appellants Cross
Respondents brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed and the Cross Appeal dismissed.
In his own case, the learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondents brief of argument filed on 26/2/2018, the Cross Appellants brief of argument filed on 17/9/2018 and deemed as properly filed on 17/9/2018 and the Cross Appellants reply brief of argument which was filed on 17/9/2018 and deemed as properly filed on the same date.
He adopted all the above mentioned briefs of argument as his argument in urging, that the Appeal be dismissed and the Cross appeal allowed.
The learned Counsel for the respondent did not argue the Preliminary Objection, it is therefore deemed as abandoned.
I have carefully gone through the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for both parties, the issues are similar but the issues formulated on behalf of the respondent encapsulates the issues formulated on behalf of the Appellant. I will therefore rely on the issues formulated on behalf of the Respondent in the determination of this appeal.
ISSUES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
ISSUE NO 1
Whether the finding of fact by the learned trial Judge that the Respondent is entitled to one hundred per cent of his medical subsidy and bills is perverse and unsupported by evidence so as to require interference by the Court of appeal. (Distilled from Ground 1)
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent is not entitled to 100% medical subsidy and medical bills from the Appellant throughout his treatment and until he is given a clean bill of health.
He argued that the Court is bound to give the operative words their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning. He referred to the case of BURAIMOH VS ESA (1990) 2 NWLR PART 133 PAGE 406 AT 408.
Learned Counsel referred to Article 2.2.4 of Exhibit D which states that:-
Poor health which arises from occupational exposure and hazards, this shall attract 100% subsidy.”
He contended that the learned trial Judge in construing Exhibit D added two phrases viz (a) Throughout his treatment (b) until he is given a clean bill of health.
He submitted that the mentioned phrases cannot be found in the contents of article 2.2.4 of Exhibit D which states that:-
Poor health which arises from occupational exposure and hazards. This shall attract 100% subsidy.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that when the employee effectively ceases to be in employment and his subsisting rights if any are to make a claim for the terminal benefits provided in the contract of employment. He referred to the case of JOMBO VS P.E.F (2005) 12 MJSC PAGE 123 AT 125.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the finding of the learned trial Judge that the Respondent is entitled to one hundred per cent of his medical subsidy and bill is supported by evidence on record and as such it does not warrant the interference of the Court of Appeal. He relied on the following cases:-
UNITY BANK PLC VS. BOUARI (2008) 7 NWLR PART 1086 PAGE 372 RATIO 20.
OJU LG VS INEC (2007) 14 NWLR PART 1054 RATIO 6.
OMOTAYO VS C.S.A (2010) 16 NWLR PART 1218 AT PAGE 11 RATIO 14.
He also referred to statement of defence filed at the lower Court and he now submitted that the respondent is entitled to be paid 100% of the cost of his medical up keep.
He urged this Court to uphold the judgment of the lower Court.
In this appeal under consideration, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondent is not entitled to 100% medical subsidy and medical bills from the appellant throughout his treatment and until he is given a clean bill of health.
In paragraph 6 of the statement of Claim which was admitted by paragraph 2 of the statement of defence. The Respondent averred that:-
The Plaintiff avers that he was also given an Administrative Policy Handbook at the point of his appointment that governs his contract of employment with the Defendant. The Handbook is pleaded.
Article 2.2.4 of the Administrative Policy Handbook provides that:-
Poor health which arises from occupational exposure and hazards. This shall attract 100% subsidy.
The learned trial Judge made findings of fact based on the evidence before him in respect of the medical bills as follows:-
I have held that the Plaintiff sustained permanent maim in the course of his employment. Article 2.2.4 of Exhibit D provides that poor health which arises from occupational exposure and hazards shall attract 100% subsidy, effect of this provision, is that the Plaintiff is entitled to be paid 100% of his medical subsidy and medical bills by the defendant throughout his treatment. It is therefore my order that the defendant should act in line with the provision of Article 2.2.4 on medicare in Exhibit D.
It is settled law that the findings of facts is the primary function of the trial Court and as such the Court of Appeal will not interfere with such finding of a trial Court except those findings of fact are perverse. This is because it is the primary duty of the trial Court to evaluate evidence and reach conclusion based on the evaluation.
In the case of OMOTAYO VS C.S.A (Supra AT PAGE 11 RATIO 14)
The Supreme Court held among others as follows:-
The function of assessment of credibility of witnesses is essentially for the trial Court and not that of the appellate Court. Therefore, the attitude of an appellate Court is to be slow to interfere with such decision of a trial Court. This is because the duty of appraising evidence given in a trial Court is pre-eminently that of the trial Judge who saw and heard the witnesses and it is that Court that has the right to ascribe values. A Court of Appeal may not interfere with the Judgment simply on the ground that it would have come to a different conclusion on the facts as long as the Judgment of the trial Court is supported by evidence. When a trial Court has adequately performed its primary role of evaluating and ascribing probative values to the evidence before it, the findings of fact made by it are entitled to respect by an appellate Court. In other words, where the trial Court clearly evaluated the evidence of the parties and justifiably appraised the facts before it as appears in the records, it is not the business of an Appellate Court to substitute its own views of the facts for those of the trial Court.
See also the following cases:- UNITY BANK PLC VS BOUARI (Supra), AKPAPUNA VS NZEKA (1983) 2 SCNLR PAGE 1, OBODO VS OGBA (1987) 2 NWLR PART 54 PAGE 1, THOMPSON VS. AROWOLO (2003) 7 NWLR PART 818 PAGE 163, MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE VS ADEYIGA & ORS (2012) LPELR 7836 (SC), OKEZIE VICTOR IKPEAZU VS ALEX OTTI & ORS (2016) LPELR 40055 (SC), FALEYE & ORS VS DADA & ORS (2016) LPELR 40297 (SC).
It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that Exhibit D does not contain the words Throughout his treatment and Until he is given a clean bill of health.
I agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent that the lower Court considered the evidence before it along with Exhibit D and drew inference from the evidence as to the meaning of one hundred per cent subsidy.
Furthermore, on the contention of the Appellant concerning the effect of termination of the Respondents employment and his right to medical subsidy. I am of the view that as a religious organization there should be mark of kindness in whatever decision that must be taken in view of the finding of the trial Court that the journey from which the accident occurred was authorized. It is expected that the Respondent ought to have been given a good treatment before terminating his employment.
Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Appellant. I am of the view that the learned trial Judge was right to have declared that the Respondent is entitled to 100% medical subsidy and medical bills from the Appellant in accordance with Exhibit D Article 2.2.4 of the Administrative Policy handbook of the Appellant.
This issue No 1 is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the learned trial Judge was in error when he awarded the sum of (2.5 million) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira as compensation to the Respondent. (Distilled from grounds 2 & 3).
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the respondent was not entitled to the payment of the sum of (2.5 Million) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira as general damages in compensation for the injuries allegedly sustained by him in the course of his employment to the Appellant.
He went further in his submission that the only way the Respondent could be entitled to claim compensation from the Appellant is through the establishment of any wrong committed on him by the Appellant which he did not do in this case. He argued that the injury complained of occurred on 6/8/2005 but that the applicable law for recovery of damages is workmens compensation Act Cap W6, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION 2004 but it is now repealed.
He referred to the case of :- OBIUWEUBI VS CBN (2011) 7 NWLR PART 1247 PAGE 465.
He stated that since the Respondent came under the common Law Rules, reliefs or claim for damages or compensation, under workmens compensation Act is foreclosed. He referred to the case of CHAGAURY VS YAKUBU (2006) 3 NWLR PART 966 PAGE 138.
It was also argued on behalf of the Appellant that the learned trial Judge relied on Exhibit E (i.e letter of authority issued by DW1 to Respondent to travel to Lagos) to come to the conclusion that the Respondent travelled to Lagos on the authority of the Appellant during which he sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the Appellant.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Judgment of the lower Court and submitted that the Respondent staying back in Lagos to see his brother was not contained in Exhibit E and same was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim.
He therefore urged this Court to interfere in the award made by the lower Court.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged this Court not to interfere in the award of damages to the Respondent because the wrong of terminating the Respondents employment with the Appellant when he was still passing through agony of injury sustained in the course of his duties deserves compensation.
The issue in this appeal is whether the learned trial Judge was in error when he awarded the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (i.e N2.5 Million) as compensation to the Respondent.
The injury complained of at the lower Court occurred on 6/8/2005. The Respondents pleading and evidence did not show that the Appellant was responsible for the said injury sustained by the Respondent. The Appellant too showed both in pleading and evidence that it was not responsible for the injury.
The DW1 shed more light on this issue when he testified among others as follows:-
My names are Pastor Afam Anaekwe—
‘… By reason of the inability of the Plaintiff to perform he has no function to perform until he has recovered fully from his inability. I met that he has an injury on one of his legs and he limps, he was therefore not in a position to perform any, function within the station. After recovery the Headquarters will be notified and he will be posted to a place of service. He is present here in Court,— Yes when I was at Benin Church we lost one of our members known as Mrs. Kehinde. When we lose any member of the church the senior pastor is expected to be there. —— I did not instruct anyone in writing to represent me (witness shown Exhibit E) — I did not write Exhibit E —‘
The Plaintiff on an occasion approached me for a trip to Lagos. On the day that the church prepared to travel for the burial of our demised sister, sister Kehinde, the Plaintiff came to the church compound to inform me that he would like to travel to Lagos to see his brother that since he heard that the church would be travelling down to bury the sister, he appealed to me to allow him to join them to cut down on cost.
I observed to him, that he was still nursing a serious wound from a previous accident, that would he be able to cope with such a stressful journey, he assured me that he could cope. I then allowed him to join the trip. —– I gave instruction to Pastor Tolushe Williams my direct Associate to represent me at the occasion. I gave instruction to him that those traveling should go in team and return as a team. They kept my instruction. They went and came back and confirmed to me that they were back. The Plaintiff did not come back with them. We were five Pastors at the Benin station then, we are myself, Pastor Tolushe, Pastor Okorie, Pastor Ikenna a.k.a (The Plaintiff) and Pastor Adegoke. I could send only two Pastors function on the church to represent me they are pastor Tolushe Williams and Pastor Okorie. The two plus myself are the pastors that the church recognizes as the pastors functioning in the station, the other two are pastors posted there to receive treatment. The Plaintiff called me from Ijebu-Ode and pleaded with me that he had an accident that he was in great pain. I had to contact the senior pastor at Ijebu-Ode to assist us to take care of him. The Plaintiff called me again that they dont have facilities to take care of his injuries at Ijebu-Ode to bring him down to Benin so that he can receive adequate attention.
I informed my superiors — of what took place in the station, this does not signify acceptability of liability. The Plaintiff was on his private business, his trip had nothing to do with the church but when something like this happens to a staff, in the kindness of leaderships they would want the person to be kept alive.
A careful review of the Judgment of the lower Court on pages 98 to 121 of the record of appeal and evidence of the Respondent and the representative of the Appellant would reveal that though the Respondent was given permission to travel to Lagos but seeing his brother in Lagos cannot be said to be in the course of his employment because he did not perform any official duty at Mrs. Kehindes burial in Lagos.
The accident that occurred was not caused by any careless act of the Appellant. That was the reason why the lower Court stated that the damages to be awarded would be a token.
The lower Court awarded a general damages of (N2.5 Million) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand to the Respondent but the Appellant contended that the Respondent is not entitled to the payment of N2.5 Million as general damages in compensation to the Respondent for the injuries sustained by him.
It is trite that the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded and proved, for it is the loss which flows naturally from the Defendants act (i.e. the Appellant in this case) and it is generally presumed by law. The manner, therefore, in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and Judgment of a reasonable person. See the case of:-
BADMUS & ANOR VS. ABEGUNDE (1999) LPELR 705 (SC).
An appeal on general damages will only be altered if it is shown to be manifestly too high or manifestly too low or awarded on a wrong principle. See DUMEZ VS. OGBOLI (1972) 3 S.C. PAGE 196.
Furthermore, general damages are never awarded as a largesse or out of sympathy born of extraneous considerations rather than, legal evidence of probative value adduced for the establishment of an actionable wrong or injury.
In this appeal, the lower Court held that the accident which occurred was not caused by any careless act of the Defendant (i.e. the Appellant).
Apart from that the Appellant was ordered to pay 100% medical subsidy in accordance with Exhibit D and medical bills to the Respondent.
The Appellant was also ordered to pay eleven months salary as terminal benefits which is (N501,600.00) Five Hundred and One Thousand and Six Hundred Naira to the Respondent.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that the award of general damages of (N2.5 Million) Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira made to the Respondent amounts to double compensation. General damages is not awarded on sentiments or as father Christmas.
Consequent upon the foregoing, I hereby set aside the lower Courts order for payment of general damages of (N2.5 Million) Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira in favour of the Respondent.
This issue No. 2 is therefore resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
Therefore this appeal succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs, each of the parties are to bear their costs in the appeal.
CROSS APPEAL
There is a Notice of Cross Appeal filed on 23/12/2010 by the Respondent/Cross Appellant against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court delivered on 27/10/2009. He filed two grounds of Cross appeal, but he abandoned ground two. The said ground two is hereby struck out.
The learned Counsel for the Cross appellant formulated a lone issue which is set out as follows:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have ordered the Cross appellant to vacate his official quarters (Distilled from Ground 1).
The learned Counsel for the Cross Respondent adopted the lone issue formulated by Counsel for the Cross Appellant in the determination of this Cross Appeal.
In his submission, the learned Counsel for the Cross Appellant submitted that a Court of law can only grant a relief claimed by party. He went further that the Court must hear evidence of the parties before making an order different from the one claimed. He contended that the lower Court granted a relief not claimed. He went further that by ordering the Respondent/Cross Appellant to vacate the appellants quarters immediately, the Court granted to the Respondent/Cross Appellant a relief not claimed.
He relied on the following cases:-
OSUJI VS EKEOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR PART 1166 PAGE 8
CHIME VS. ONYIA (2009) 2 NWLR PART 1124 PAGE 1 AT 25 RATIO 29.
He finally urged this Court to set aside the order of the lower Court directing the Cross Appellant to vacate his official quarters.
In his own response to the submission of learned Counsel for the Cross Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Cross Respondent submitted that both parties in the appeal have joined issues.
He submitted that the learned trial Judge was duty bound to decide the case based on the issue joined in the pleadings. He relied on the following:-
OYEBANJI SANGOKEYE & ORS VS MRS. J. F. BOLARINWA CA/I/300/88 delivered on 20/1/92. LAW OF CIVIL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA AUTHORED BY A. TORIOLA OYEWO; MODUPE NIGERIA LAW SERIES VOLUME 1 AT PAGE 167.
It was contended by learned Counsel for the Cross Respondent that Exhibits D and G in the statement of claim as shown on page 3 of the record of Appeal were not contested.
He then submitted that the findings of facts made by the learned trial Judge for the Cross Respondent that the cross Appellant should vacate the official quarters in line with Exhibit D was proper and does not call for the interference of the Court of Appeal. He relied on the case of OYADARE VS KEJI (2005) 4 MJSC PAGE 172 AT 178.
He finally urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of Cross Respondent.
The issue in this Cross Appeal is whether the learned trial Judge was right to have ordered the Cross Appellant to vacate his official quarters.
In this appeal there is no dispute on the fact that there is no claim against the cross Appellant to vacate his official quarters before the lower Court.
It is trite law that, no Court is allowed to grant to a party a relief not sought or asked for. This Court and the Supreme Court has stated in quite a number of decisions that a Court ought not to play the role of father Christmas which can go around granting relief which were not specifically asked for.
See the following cases:- A. G. ABIA STATE V. A. G. FEDERATION (2006) 16 NWLR PART 1005 PAGE 265.
AGBI VS. OGBE (2006) 11 NWLR PART 990 PAGE 65. SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD VS. AFROPAK NIG. LTD & ORS (2008) 24 NSCQR PART 11 PAGE 287. ALHAJI M. B. AWODI & ANOR VS. MALLAM SALIU AJAGBE (2014) LPELR 24219 (SC). GOYANG KAYILI VS. ESLY YILBUK & ORS (2015) LPELR 24323 (SC).
A Court can only grant a relief sought if the Plaintiff proves his case on preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities.
In this appeal, the trial Court ordered the Respondent/Cross Appellant to vacate the Appellants quarters immediately.
By this order, the trial Court has granted the Respondent/Cross Appellant a relief he did not claim or lead evidence upon.
In the circumstance, the order of the lower Court which directed the Cross Appellant to vacate his official quarters is hereby set aside.
The lone issue in this Cross Appeal is resolved in favour of the Cross Appellant.
This Cross Appeal succeeds and it is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: I read in advance, the judgment delivered by my learned brother Jimi O. Bada, JCA.
My learned brother has adequately and clearly resolved the main issues that arose for determination, in both the Appeal and Cross-Appeal. I only wish to add a few words of mine on the award of Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N2.5M) awarded to the Respondent/Cross-Appellant as compensation for injuries he sustained, allegedly in the course of his employment.
The learned trial Judge found that the evidence adduced at the trial indicate that the accident was not caused by any act of the Appellant/Cross-Respondents yet the learned trial Judge, perhaps out of sympathy, awarded the sum of N2.5million as compensation for the injuries sustained in what he termed a token sum. In law, a Defendant would only be liable in damages where the injury to the Plaintiff occurred due to breach of duty. The facts disclose that the Respondent/Cross-Appellant was a servant of the Appellant/Cross-Respondent. He claimed to have sustained the injury in the course of his duty as such employee.
Under the Workmens Compensation Act Cap N6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, a workman will only be entitled to compensation where the accident arose out of and in the cause of the discharge of his duties as such employee. The burden of proving that the personal injury was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment lies upon the injured workman. See Anike V. S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd (2011) 7 NWLR (pt. 1246) 227; Caxton Press (Nig.) Ltd v. Adeshina (1969) 1 NMLR 224 and Famuyiwa V. Folawiyo & Ors (1972) 1 All N.L.R 446. In any case, having been compensated under Article 2.2.4 of Exhibit D, it amounted, in my view, to double compensation to award the sum of N2.5million as done by the trial Court. The sum of N2.5million awarded the Respondent/Cross-Appellant is accordingly set aside.
It is for the above reasons and the further reasons in the lead judgment that I agreed that the main appeal has succeeded in part and should be allowed in part. The Cross-Appeal has merit and is hereby allowed. I abide by the order on costs.
FOLASHADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading before now the draft of the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA and I am in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. I however wish to emphasize the well settled principle of law that a Court of law is not Father Christmas and would not grant a relief that has not been sought by parties before it.
In the case of AWODI & ANOR. V. AJAGBE (2014) LPELR- 24219 @ 41-42, PARAS. B-B, the Supreme Court per Galadima, JSC held that:
It is now elementary principle of law, as has long been settled by this Court in a plethora of cases that the Court of law has no business being a Father Christmas (Santa Claus) fancying granting relief or prayer which the parties have not specifically asked for or sought. in the case of THE NIGERIA AIR FORCE v. SHEKETE (2002) 1 SCNJ 35 AT 52-52 this Court held per my brother NIKI TOBI JSC as follows:
“It is elementary law that a Court of law cannot grant an applicant a prayer not sought. A Court can only grant a relief or prayer sought. The moment a Court grants a relief or prayer not sought by the party, it expands the boundaries of litigation and unnecessarily instigates more litigation to the detriment of the parties and for no reason at all. The litigation is for the parties and not the Court. Therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to extend or expand the boundaries of litigation beyond what the parties have indicated to it. In other words, the Court has no jurisdiction to set up a different or new case for the parties. See further WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD v. IRON AND STEEL WORKERS UNION (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt 30) 617, EKPENYONG v. NYONG (1975) 2 SC 71 at 81; MAKANJUOLA v. BALOGUN (1989) 5 SC at 93.”
Furthermore, in ODUNZE & ORS V. NWOSU & ORS (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1050) 1; (2007) LPELR- 2252 at 57, PARAS. A-B, the Supreme Court per Mukhtar, JSC held that:
“The cardinal principles of the law that is well settled is that a Court is not a charitable institution that would grant reliefs that are not claimed by a party. It must restrict and confine itseif within the walls of the reliefs a party approaches it for, and not to undertake its own generous acts of a warding reliefs not sought. See Kalio v. Kalio (1975)2 S. C 15, Okeowo v Migliore (1979) 11 SC 138, and Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108.
Any relief or prayer granted without being pre-claimed by parties is invalid and an appeal on that ground would be allowed. Such an award should not be allowed to stand.
This Court in the case of UWAECHINA V. OKEKE (2014) LPELR 23753 @ 9, PARAS. C-E held that:
An appeal will no doubt be allowed in circumstances where a Court grants to a party a relief which was not sought or claimed by him.
The Courts are only bound to adjudicate over a specific issue as joined by the parties hence a Court lacks power to grant a party a relief or remedy which he did not claim.
In the instant appeal, there was no claim against the Cross Appellant to vacate his official quarters. The lower Court was therefore clearly in error when it ordered the Cross appellant to vacate his official quarters. I also resolve the lone issue in the cross appeal in favour of the Cross Appellant and allow the Cross appeal.
I agree that the main appeal succeeds in part and abide by the orders made by my learned brother including the order as to costs.
Appearances:
MR. F. B. AGBANWUFor Appellant(s)
MR. NNAMDI ANOKAFor Respondent(s)
