Damages (151)
HELD:
"The law is trite that general damages are losses which flow naturally from the defendant's act and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally assumed by law and its quantification is at the discretion of the court.
HELD:
"Generally, the amount of damages to be paid to a person for breach of contract is the amount it will entail to put that person in the position he would have been if there has not been any breach of the contract. In other words, the plaintiff is only entitled to damages naturally flowing or resulting from the breach.
HELD:
"The principle of assessment of damages for breach of contract generally is restituo in integram - that is, the plaintiff should be restored, as for such as money can do it, into the correct position he would have been if the breach had not occurred." ABUJA CAPITAL MOTORS LTD. v. ALHAJI ABDULHAZEZ BELLO ALIYU(2017) LPELR-42865(CA) Per AKOMOLAFE-WILSON, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-25, Paras. F-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The real concern of the Appellants in issue one is whether the learned trial judge was right to have acted on the old and substituted valuation report admitted as Exhibits PW3 (G-H) utilized in the cross-examination of PW3 to dismiss the Appellants claims for special damages.
HELD:
"There is no doubt that a plaintiff claiming special damages must clearly plead facts that will sustain all items of the special damages but in the case of general damages a plaintiff is only expected to make averment concerning the loss or damages suffered as a result of breach of duty or care to the plaintiff by the Defendant and to show that the monetary claim in general damages falls within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. It must be proved that the sum would be reasonable enough to assuage or compensate for the damages or loss suffered by the Plaintiff. See (1) G.K. INVESTMENTS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC. (2009) 15 NWLR (PART 1164) 344 AT 376 G -377 A - C." MUSBAWU ABDULLAHI & ANOR v. ESTHER MAMZA(2013) LPELR-21964(CA)Per IGE, J.C.A. (Pp. 72-73, paras. F-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"...matters within the scope of special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by a plaintiff, while the quantum of general damages is premised on the assessment of a trial Judge. In the case of: Shodipo v. Daily Times of Nig. Ltd. (1972) ALL N.L.R. p.842, the Supreme Court held per Elias, J.S.C. that; --------where one is claiming special damages, the circumstances are such that one is able to put one's finger on a particular item of loss and say, "I can prove that I lost so much there, so much there, and so much there", whereas a claim for general damages means this: "We cannot prove particular items, but we can prove beyond all possible doubt that there has been pecuniary loss." MUSBAWU ABDULLAHI & ANOR v. ESTHER MAMZA(2013) LPELR-21964(CA)Per OMOLEYE, J.C.A. (Pp. 85-86, paras. D-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"In order to properly define the onus and standard of proof concerning the claim for General Damages and special damages a distinction ought to be made between the two types of damages.
HELD:
"General damages is the type of damages which the law presumes to naturally flow from and assuage the wrong complained of against a defendant. Therefore, general damages need not be specifically pleaded and proved.
HELD:
"The question, whether a party can be awarded damages twice for the same injury is clearly settled that, where a victim of tort has been fully compensated under one head of damages for a particular injury, it is improper to award him damages in respect of the same injury under another head.
HELD:
"...the law is settled that there must be before the court the cost of the damaged vehicle or estimated value before the accident and the probable amount of the damaged car or vehicle to enable the court of trial properly to assess the damages that is commensurate to the level of negligence caused. See the case of S.W. UBANI - UKOMA VS. G.E. NICOL (1962) 1 ALL N.L.R. 105 AT 106." MUSBAWU ABDULLAHI & ANOR v. ESTHER MAMZA(2013) LPELR-21964(CA) Per IGE, J.C.A. (Pp. 68-69, paras. F-A)
FACTS: