UNION HOMES SAVINGS & LOANS PLC v. OLUWASOLA (2021)

UNION HOMES SAVINGS & LOANS PLC v. OLUWASOLA

(2021)LCN/15801(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 12, 2021

CA/L/468/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

UNION HOMES SAVINGS & LOANS PLC APPELANT(S)

And

ALHAJI NURUDEEN A. OLUWASOLA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL DAMAGES MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED

It is settled law that unlike special damages which is special in nature and must be pleaded specially and proved strictly, the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded or proved. The manner in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what a reasonable man judgment would be in the circumstance. See Hon. Nze Herbert Osuji & Anor. vs. Anthony Isiocha (1989) 6 SC (Pt 11) 158 and Eneh vs. Ozor & Anor. (2016) LPELR-40830 (SC).
In the case of general damages, where the plaintiff proves his claim, the award of damages is determined by the Court based on what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Award is on the discretionary power of the trial Judge to make his own assessment of the quantum of damages. See Odulaja vs. Haddad (1973) 11-12 SC 357. In the instant Appeal, the lower Court held at Pages 242 to 243 of the Printed record as follows:-
“General damages are such as the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of, for reason that they are immediate, direct and proximate result or such as necessary result from the injury or such as did in fact result from the wrong. See the cases of I.M.N.L Ltd. vs. Nwachukwu (2004) 6-7 SC 89 at 99; Julius Breger vs. Omogui (2001) 6SC 185 at 193 and ACB vs. Okonkwo (1997) 1 NWLR 194 at 197.” PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting in the Lagos Division delivered on 18/1/2016 in Suit No. LD/ADR/575/2013. The facts before the lower Court are that, the Respondent (Claimant at the lower Court) opened an account with the Appellant (Defendant at the lower Court) sometimes in March, 2013 with the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) which was fixed for a 60 day tenure at 10% interest rate. The invested sum, on the authorization of the Respondent, was rolled over several times for the same fixed tenure of 60 days at 10% interest rate and at the expiration of the second rollover in July, the Respondent requested for a part liquidation of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) and the balance sum of Eight Million Naira (N8,000,000.00) was rolled over, and same was to mature on 24/9/2013. The Staff of the Appellant went on strike and only resumed on 16/9/2013 and that same day, the Respondent submitted a letter dated 30/8/2013 seeking to prematurely terminate the current investment of Eight Million Naira (N8,000,000.00) on the 19/9/2013.

According to the agreement of the parties, where a Respondent intends to prematurely terminate his investment before the day of maturity, a one-week notice must be given to the Appellant and a disposal instruction must be filled out by the Respondent. The Appellant failed to oblige the Respondent’s request and the Respondent’s solicitor wrote to the Appellant. The Parties went for mediation where terms of settlement was drawn up as between the parties. The Appellant, without the consent of the Respondent paid the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) into a GTB account in the Respondent’s name; an account which the Respondent claimed he has closed but received an alert on the payment in the said account.

The lower Court after going through a plenary trial delivered its judgment in favour of the Respondent. The lower Court particularly on Page 244 of the record held:
“From the foregoing, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant as stated herein in this judgment. I also make the following reliefs:
a. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant, the sum of N3,118,356.16 (Three Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Sixteen Kobo) being the balance of the principal sum and interest due to the Claimant as at 24th of September, 2013, Defendant having made a payment of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) into the GTB account of the Claimant.
b. The Defendant shall pay 10% interest rate on N3,118,356.16 16 (Three Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Sixteen Kobo) from the date this suit was instituted till judgment is entered.
c. The Defendant shall pay 10% interest rate on N3,118,356.16 (Three Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira, Sixteen Kobo) cumulative from the day judgment is entered to the execution of judgment.
d. The Defendant shall also pay N500,000.00 general damages to the Claimant.
e. I award the sum of N300,000.00 as cost.

The Appellant piqued by the decision of the lower Court initiated this appeal vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 19/2/2016 containing three grounds of appeal found on pages 246-248 of the record. In the Appellant’s brief filed on 28/9/2016 but deemed as properly filed and served on 2/03/2017, the following issues are formulated for determination:
1. “Whether having regards to the pleadings and totality of the oral and documentary evidence before the Court, particularly Exhibits “B” and “C”, the Respondent was entitled to judgment in the sum of N8,118,356.16 being the principal and interest as at 24th September, 2013.”
2. “Whether the Respondent was properly granted general damages of N500,000.00 which was neither pleaded nor constituted issues as settled in the pleadings.”

Arguing issue one, it is the submission of Counsel that Exhibit B, which was tendered and relied by the Respondent in proof of his claim for a refund of the sum of N8,118,356.16 at the lower Court, contains a special notice which requires a disposal instruction given one week before maturity of an investment where there is to be a premature termination of an investment. Learned counsel referred to Exhibit A which is the Respondent’s written statement on oath, more particularly, paragraphs 7 and 8 which stated that the investment of N8,000,000.00 was to mature on 24/9/2013 whereas the Respondent’s letter requested the termination of the investment by 19/9/2013.

Counsel also referred this Court to Exhibit F which is the Appellant’s written statement on oath, more particularly paragraphs 6 and 7, stating that from the purport of Exhibit B, all premature termination now attracts 25% flat rate on the interest. It is the contention of counsel that the Appellant’s evidence which is to the effect that the Staff of the Appellant’s embarked on strike from 5/8/2013 and called it off and resumed on the 16/9/2013, the same day the Respondent submitted his letter dated 30/8/2013 was not discredited by the Respondent by way of filing a reply or by way of cross examination and is therefore deemed admitted. He cited O.C.F.S. Ltd vs. Ogunleye (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 427) 48 at 60.

Counsel posited that the fundamental question which this Court is called upon to resolve is whether, the Respondent complied with Exhibit B which required the Respondent to give disposal instruction on the maturing investment as least one week before the maturity as to justify the finding of the lower Court that the Appellant violated its contractual obligations and entered judgment in the sum of N8,118,356.16 being the principal and interest due to the Respondent as at 24/9/2013.

He relied on Cadbury (Nig) Plc vs. Oni (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 665) 251 at 274 to the effect that parties are bound by the agreement they voluntarily entered into and the Court can only interpret or enforce same. That Exhibit C was a disposal instruction of 3 days as against the express agreement of parties contained in Exhibit B.

He urged this Court to step into the shoes of the lower Court, the lower Court having failed in its duty to fully and properly evaluate Exhibits B and C and therefore came to the wrong conclusion. He placed reliance on Okereke vs. Ejiofor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 90 at 108; Ebba vs. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372. It is the submission of Counsel that Exhibit C was a premature termination which was neither pleaded nor any reliefs sought thereon by the Respondent and as such, the finding of the lower Court entering judgment in favour of the Respondent for refund of the sum of N8,118,356.16 relying on Exhibit C amounted to re-writing the agreement which is Exhibit B. He cited Nimanteks Associates vs. Marck Construction Co. Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 174) 411 at 417. He further submitted that the finding of the lower Court was wrong and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. He urged this Court to set aside the judgment and dismiss the Respondent’s suit for being premature and incompetent.

On issue two, learned Counsel cited the cases of Makanjuola vs. Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 192 at 206; Olorotimi vs. Ige (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 311) 257 at 271 which are to the effect that a Court should not grant a relief not sought by a party or make an order against a person without hearing him. Based on this background, it is the contention of counsel that the lower Court did not give any opportunity to the Appellant to be heard on the issue of general damages having been raised suo moto by the Court and granted in favour of the Respondent, thus denying the Appellant its right to fair hearing. He referred toAbbas vs. Solomon (2001) FWLR (Pt. 67) 847. Counsel posited that by the act of the lower Court not hearing the Appellant on the issue of general damages, which the lower Court raised suo moto, the Court made a case for the Respondent and proceeded to give judgment thereon; which the lower Court was incompetent to do – Commissioner for Works, Benue State vs. Devcon Development Consultants Limited (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407.

It is the submission of Counsel that the relief sought by the Respondent as per paragraph 17(a) of his statement of claim and for which he gave evidence as per paragraphs 13-17 of Exhibit A was an order for special damages in the sum of N2,000,000, even though the lower Court held that the Respondent had failed to specifically prove the claim for special damages and refused same, went on to grant general damages in the sum of N500,000 to the Respondent which was neither pleaded but raised suo moto by the lower Court. That this act is contrary to the settled position of the law that in no circumstances can general damages be properly substituted for special damages which a Plaintiff has failed to prove or even if he has led evidence on it, did not in fact make any claim for it – Ganiyu Badmus & Anor vs. Abegunde (1999) L.R.C.N 2912 at 2925 SC. Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent having failed to give the disposal instruction of one week before maturity as required by Exhibit B, the issue of violation or breach of contract raised and considered by the lower Court was of no moment and should be discountenanced by this Court. Relying on Ganiyu Badmus & Anor vs. Abegunde (Supra).

That general damages in this case cannot stem from the mere fact of the loss occasioned by the Respondent funding his daughter’s wedding or borrowing money from other sources at 25% interest per month which by their very nature readily led themselves to qualification or assessment which the lower Court rightly held was not proved as required by the law. According to Counsel, general damages must be properly averred in the pleadings and evidence given in order not to fall foul of the rule against double compensation, and must not be conceived as a substitute for special damages.

In conclusion, learned Counsel relying on Aniekan Amos Peters vs. A.I.G (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1449 submitted that great injustice will result if this Court does not interfere as the lower Court by awarding general damages of N500,000.00 against the Appellant acted under a mistake of law, in disregard of the principles and under a misapprehension of facts. He therefore urged this Court to set aside the judgment of the lower Court and dismiss the Respondent’s suit in its entirety.

The Respondent’s brief was filed on 24/10/2017 but deemed as properly filed and served on 11/1/2021. In the Respondent’s brief, he adopted the issues for determination as formulated by the Appellant. He however raised a preliminary objection in respect to the Appellant’s issue one. In arguing the preliminary objection, Respondent’s Counsel contended that the judgment sum entered in favour of the Respondent was in the sum of N3,118,356.16 and not N8,118,356.16 as formulated in issue 1 in the Appellant’s brief. He therefore urged this Court to strike out issue 1 in view of the fact that the judgment sum being argued is not the judgment sum the lower Court awarded the Respondent in the said judgment.

Counsel argued that because the Appellant did not respond to Exhibits C and D (the letter of 30/8/2013 and Respondent’s solicitor’s letter dated 28/10/2013 respectively) thus discountenancing them, the Appellant cannot come and be raising issues as to a document the Appellant never acted upon. This much, Respondent’s Counsel posited that the Appellant’s witness admitted under cross examination on page 193 of the record.

He contended that from the evidence of the Appellant’s witness, it is certain that the Respondent is entitled to the principal and full interest without any form of penalty for premature termination, as the Appellant’s failure to honour Exhibit C cannot be seen to penalize the Respondent for an act, which the Appellant breached. With respect to the Appellant’s argument on the disposal instruction, it is the argument of Counsel that the Respondent’s instruction in Exhibit C, the letter of 30/8/2013 which states that the Appellant should terminate the Respondent’s investment suffices as a disposal instruction.

Learned Counsel also argued that the claim of the Appellant that it paid the sum of N5,000,000.00 into the account of the Respondent without the consent of the Respondent is against the cardinal principles of banking citing Kwajaffa vs. B.O.N Ltd (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587). It is the submission of Counsel that the Respondent did not only plead in his writ of summons and statement of claim but also showed by credible evidence as to the rate of interest he was entitled to. He cited Ilokson & Co. Nig Ltd vs. U.B.N Plc (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122); U.B.N Plc vs. Ifeoluwa (Nig) Ent Ltd (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1032). Counsel further submitted that the submission of the Appellant in paragraphs 4.07, 4.08, 4.09, 4.10 and 4.11 goes to no issue as the Appellant did not at any point in time honour the said Exhibit C and cannot be allowed to misrepresent facts or use same as a shield. He urged this Court to dismiss the ground of Appeal for being unmeritorious.

On issue two, Counsel posited that the question that calls for determination is whether the Respondent is entitled to damages in view of the Respondent’s pleadings. It is the assertion of Counsel that the Appellant breached its contractual obligation to the Respondent in that the Appellant did not avail the Respondent the funds which was meant for the Respondent child’s wedding ceremony. He referred this Court to the Respondent’s witness statement on oath particularly paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. It is the submission of Counsel that it is manifestly clear that the Respondent was entitled to damages in view of the breach caused by the Appellant more so when the lower Court in its finding noticed that the act of the Appellant did cause the Respondent an embarrassment and also stressed the Respondent.

According to Counsel, the lower Court, having established that the Respondent was embarrassed and stressed consequent upon the breach by the Appellant, awarded the Respondent general damages and as such, the Appellant’s argument that the Respondent did not pray for general damages goes to no issue. He called in aid the cases of Nwachukwu vs. Egbuchu (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 139) 433 at 445; Oceanic Bank International (Nig) Ltd vs. G. Chitex Industries Ltd (2000) FWLR (Pt. 4) 678 at 692; and submitted that the lower Court was right to have awarded the Respondent general damages. He therefore urged this Court to dismiss this appeal in its entirety for lacking in merit.

The reply brief was filed on 6/1/2021 but deemed as properly filed and served on 11/1/2021. As to the preliminary objection, learned Counsel submitted that Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 as amended clearly prescribes a preliminary objection against the hearing of an Appeal and not against some grounds of Appeal or issue(s) arising there from. It is the submission of Counsel that a challenge to only one out of other ground(s) of Appeal or the issue(s) arising from the grounds cannot achieve the purpose of a preliminary objection which is to truncate the hearing of Appeal for being altogether incompetent. He relied on FRN vs. Atuche (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 338.

That the proper procedure where there are other ground(s) sustaining the Appeal, is to attack the allegedly defective ground of Appeal or the issue formulated there from by way of a Motion on Notice. In the light of the foregoing, it is the contention of Counsel that grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal together with issue number 1 formulated thereon are competent and arose from the judgment of the lower Court. Counsel referred to the judgment of the lower Court on pages 239-240 and 244 of the record.

According to Counsel, the Respondent’s submission in paragraphs 4.16, 4.19 and 4.26 of the Respondent’s brief are misconceived as there was no evidence of the mandatory one week notice before maturity to terminate, talk less of 20 days’ notice being canvassed by the Respondent; as a notice takes effect from the date it is delivered to the recipient which in this case was 16/9/2013.

It is the contention of Counsel that Exhibit C was for the premature termination of the investment on 19/9/2013 and therefore the lower Court cannot use it as a substitute for the one week disposal notice to justify the award for the sum of N8,118,356.16 as at 24/9/2013. He cited Ganiyu Badmus & Anor vs. A.O. Abegunde (supra); Najibu Aruku vs. J.O. Fayose & Ors (1970) 2 All NLR 128. Learned Counsel reiterated the argument that the lower Court made up a case for the Respondent and gave the agreement of the parties a different construction different from that which it imports.

He cited Artra Industries Limited vs. Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industries (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 438) 574. With regards to paragraphs 4.44 and 4.45 of the Respondent’s brief, it is the submission of Counsel that the Respondent did not file any Cross Appeal against the payment of the sum of N5,000,000.00 to the GTB account of the Respondent, therefore all arguments and case law referred to in that respect should be discountenanced as the argument do not arise from the Appellant’s Notice and grounds of Appeal and issues formulated. He placed reliance on Government of Akwa Ibom State vs. Polaris Bank Ltd (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 347; Osazuwa vs. Isibor (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 16; Akere vs. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240. He therefore urged this Court to allow the Appeal.

DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
This Appeal will be determined on the two issues formulated by the Appellant which the Respondent adopted. For clarity and emphasis, issue one is:- “Whether having regards to the pleadings and totality of the Oral and Documentary evidence before the Court, particularly Exhibits “B” and “C”, the Respondent was entitled to Judgment in the sum of N8,118,356.16 being the principal and interest as at 24/09/2013” (Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
I will start with the Preliminary objection raised by the Respondent at Paragraphs 4:01 to 4:11 of his Brief which is to the effect that issue number 1 formulated and argued by the Appellant in the Appellant’s brief of argument does not in any way form part of the lower Court’s judgment, that the Appellant’s grounds 1 and 2 which birthed the issue No. 1 did not arise from the lower Court’s judgment reason being that, the judgment sum being argued by the Appellant is not the judgment sum awarded to the Respondent by the lower Court and therefore should be struck out.

Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 clearly prescribes a preliminary objection against the hearing of an Appeal and not against some grounds of Appeal or issue(s) arising there from. A challenge to only one out of other ground(s) of Appeal or the issue(s) arising from the grounds cannot achieve the purpose of a preliminary objection which is to truncate the hearing of an Appeal for being altogether incompetent. See Olaiya & Ors. vs. Lawal (2019) LPELR-48205 (CA).
The proper procedure, when there are other ground(s) sustaining the Appeal is to attack the allegedly defective ground of appeal or the issue formulated by way of a Motion on Notice. SeeIbrahim vs. A.P.C (No 1) (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 444, Daudu vs. F.R.N (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 169. Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal together with issue number 1 formulated thereon are competent and arose from the judgment of the lower Court. The finding of the lower Court contained in its judgment at Pages 239 – 240 of the record of Appeal are as follows:
“From the evidence adduced before the Court, the Claimant is entitled to the amount claimed in relief 1 which is N8,118,356.16 (Eight Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Sixty Naira, Sixteen Kobo) being the principal and interest due to the claimant as at 24th September, 2013, but less the amount paid back by the Defendant. The claimant during cross examination admitted that after the mediation. The defendant paid the sum of N5,000,000.00 ( Five Million Naira) into his GTB account …“

The trial Court further held in its judgment contained at page 244 of the Record of Appeal that:
“The defendant shall pay to the claimant the sum of N3,118,356.16 (Three Million, One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Three Hundred and fifty Six Naira, Sixteen Kobo) being the balance of the principal sum and interest due to the claimant as at 24th September, 2013, the defendant having made a payment of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) into the GTB account of the claimant”

The Respondent was awarded the sum of N8,118,356.16 as per his relief 1, but having been paid the sum of N5,000,000.00 earlier by the Appellant, he was awarded the sum of N3,118,356.16 being the balance of the sum of N8,118,356.16 with interest from the date of institution of the case till date of judgment without taking cognisance of the earlier payment of N5,000,000.00 by the Appellant.

Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice and grounds of Appeal together with Appellant’s issue number 1 formulated from the said grounds are therefore competent. The Preliminary Objection is therefore overruled, same is dismissed. There is no dispute between the parties before the lower Court that the Respondent/Claimant invested the sum of Eight Million Naira (N8,000,000.00) with the Appellant/Defendant which was to mature on 24/09/2013. Exhibit B is the special notice which require disposal instructions on the maturing investment at least one week before maturity. Pending receipt of such instructions, matured investments will be transferred to a one day call deposit account at the prevailing rate interest. That all premature terminations attract 25% flat on the interest. The interest rate as reflected on Exhibit B is at 10% for tenor of sixty (60) days.

The Respondent, in his evidence before the lower Court as per Exhibit A his written statement on oath said at paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 that his investment of N8,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) was for sixty (60) days and it was to mature on 24th September, 2013. Furthermore, that on 30th August, 2013, he wrote a letter requesting for the termination of his investment by 19th September, 2013, of which the maturity date was 24th September, 2013. From the Printed record as shown on Page 238, the Claimant/Respondent could not submit Exhibit C to the Appellant/Defendant until 16/09/2013 due to the strike of the staff of the Appellant/Defendant.

This evidence that the Claimant submitted Exhibit C on 16/09/2013 was corroborated by the Defendant/Appellant’s witness at Paragraph 7 of her statement on oath (Page 38 of the Printed record) and during cross examination on Page 193 of the record. It is the contention of Counsel to the Respondent that Exhibit C was for the premature termination of the investment on 19/9/2013 and therefore the lower Court cannot use it as a substitute for the one week disposal notice to justify the award for the sum of N8,118,356.16 as at 24/9/2013. The Respondent/Claimant during cross examination as shown at Page 205 of the Printed record admitted that after the close of mediation, the Appellant/Defendant paid the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) into his GTB account. The Appellant’s/Defendant’s Counsel admitted during cross examination (Page 212 of the Printed record) that they have paid N5,000,000.00 to the Respondent/Claimant out of his investment of N8,000,000.00.
It therefore follows that, even though the Appellant is challenging the finding of the lower Court on the Respondent’s claim for a refund of the sum of N8,118,356.16 being the principal and interest due to the Respondent as at 24th September, 2013 based on assumed disposal instruction of one week before maturity which according to him the lower Court erroneously granted; the Appellant having paid the Respondent N5,000,000.00 out of the N8,118,356.16, cannot complain of Exhibit C as premature termination which was not pleaded. The Appellant by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct is estopped from challenging the validity of Exhibit C. In the case of B.P.S. Construction & Engineering Company Ltd. vs. F.C.D.A. (2017) LPELR-42516 (SC) it was held that:- “Section 151 of the Evidence Act 1990, now Section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides:
“When one person has either by virtue of an existing Court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act, or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.”
This is what is meant by estoppel by conduct. See also: Olalekan vs. Wema Bank Plc. (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 617 at 622 – 626 H-G; Lawal vs Union Bank Plc. (1995) 2 SCNJ 132 at 145. Issue one is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

Issue two is “Whether the Respondent was properly granted General Damages of N500,000.00 which was neither pleaded nor constituted issues as settled pleadings” It is settled law that unlike special damages which is special in nature and must be pleaded specially and proved strictly, the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded or proved. The manner in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what a reasonable man judgment would be in the circumstance. See Hon. Nze Herbert Osuji & Anor. vs. Anthony Isiocha (1989) 6 SC (Pt 11) 158 and Eneh vs. Ozor & Anor. (2016) LPELR-40830 (SC).
In the case of general damages, where the plaintiff proves his claim, the award of damages is determined by the Court based on what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Award is on the discretionary power of the trial Judge to make his own assessment of the quantum of damages. See Odulaja vs. Haddad (1973) 11-12 SC 357. In the instant Appeal, the lower Court held at Pages 242 to 243 of the Printed record as follows:-
“General damages are such as the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of, for reason that they are immediate, direct and proximate result or such as necessary result from the injury or such as did in fact result from the wrong. See the cases of I.M.N.L Ltd. vs. Nwachukwu (2004) 6-7 SC 89 at 99; Julius Breger vs. Omogui (2001) 6SC 185 at 193 and ACB vs. Okonkwo (1997) 1 NWLR 194 at 197.”
I have carefully gone through the statement of claim (Page 4 of the Printed record) and the Respondent’s/Claimant’s witness statement on oath (Pages 6-7 of the Printed record) and observed that at Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim it was averred thus:-
“The Claimant purportedly kept aside the said fund with the Defendant for the purpose of the Claimant’s Child wedding coming up on the 16th of November, 2013”. In the written statement on oath at Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 it was stated thus:-
“13.) That the said fund was kept in the custody of the Defendant for the funding of Daughter wedding slated for the 16th Day of November, 2013. The said invitation card is hereby Exhibited as Exhibit N. A. O. 4”
14.) “That I had to borrow money from another source at 25% interest per month”
15.) “That the act of the Defendant by failing to pay me my deposit as agreed, did affect my daughter’s wedding program tremendously”
16.) “That despite the fact that I had to borrow funds at an exorbitant rate, the funds are inadequate in that part of my Daughter’s wedding Program had to be funded on credit.”
The evidence of the Respondent/Claimant was not discredited during cross examination as shown on Page 192 of the Printed record and is therefore deemed admitted. The lower Court stated in its Judgment on Page 244 of the Printed record thus:-
“There is no doubt that the Defendant has suffered some embarrassment and stress. He is therefore entitled to General damages…….The Defendant shall……pay N500,000.00 general damages to the Claimant”
General Damages are such as the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of, for the reason that they are its immediate, direct and proximate result or such as did in fact result from the wrong directly or proximately result or such as did in fact result from the wrong, directly to proximately and without reference to the special character, condition or circumstances of the Plaintiff. SeeOceanic Bank International (Nig) Ltd vs. G. Chitex Industries Ltd (2000) F. W. L. R (Pt 4) 678 at 692.
The Respondent having suffered embarrassment and stress by borrowing money for his daughter’s wedding due to the failure of the Appellant to return his investment to him as at when due, the lower Court was therefore on a sound footing when it awarded the General Damages in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. The second issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. This Appeal is unmeritorious and is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment of the Lagos High Court in Suit number LD/ADR/575/13 delivered on 18/01/2016 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the comprehensive judgment prepared by my learned brother, ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A., and agree with the reasoning contained therein and conclusion arrived at.

For the same reasons stated, I too find this appeal unmeritorious, and in accordingly dismissed.
I abide by the order as to cost.