Damages (151)
HELD:
"Indeed alarm bells would ring out where it seems double compensation is being awarded by the Court and though the law guards against double compensation that principle does not rule out the award of both general and special damages in a deserving situation. This occurs where a party is able to show or where it is glaring from the surrounding circumstance of the case and nature of injury suffered by the party that special damages would not adequately compensate for all the loss, the Court must go ahead to award both special and general damages and this cannot be termed double compensation.
HELD:
"The contending views are firstly, appellant's stance that the Court below erred when it held that the award of N2.5 million general damages for breach of contract against the respondent is contrary to the provision in the Montreal Convention which had placed a limit to what is claimable except where negligence or wilful misconduct is established. Also that there is prohibition of the award of general damages against an airline operator for grievous and reckless breach of contract of carriage by air but merely prohibits the award of aggravated, punitive and other non- compensatory damages. On the other hand, the respondent's stance is that Article 29 of the Montreal Convention does not permit the award of general damages in addition to special damages contrary to the established principles governing the award of damages in breach of contract cases.
HELD:
"The law is well defined that general damages can be inferred, as it normally flows from the wrongs committed by the defendant, and needs not be pleaded and proved by any empirical method. After holding in the subsequent paragraphs that the Court below was right to have granted claims 1 and 2 of the Respondent, it would only accord with the dictates of common sense to hold that the Court below was also right to have granted the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) as general damages against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. I do not agree with counsel to the Appellant that oral evidence was required of the Respondent before an award of general damages could be granted by the Court below. On the strength of the above, the order of the Court below in this regard stands." NIGERIA GERMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY PLC v. KRISORAL AND COMPANY LIMITED(2019) LPELR-47987(CA)Per UMAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 37-38, Paras. D-B)
FACTS:
HELD:
"Section 35 (6) of the Constitution stipulates that any person who is unlawfully arrested and detained shall be entitled to compensation. It was on the strength of the decision of the lower Court that the Appellants infringed the fundamental rights of the 1st Respondent that it awarded damages of N200, 000.00 against them. Having held that the lower Court was wrong in so holding, the damages awarded cannot stand. The legal principle being sublato principali tollitur adjunctum (co. Litt. 389) [the principal being taken away, the adjunct is also taken away]: ADEGOKE MOTORS vs. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 109) 250 at 269." PRINCE PHILIPS ADE-OJO & ORS v. GOKE MAKANJUOLA & ORS(2019) LPELR-47962(CA)Per OGAKWU, J.C.A. (P. 32, Paras. A-D)
FACTS:
HELD:
" A relief for loss of earnings is in the nature of special damages and full particulars must be given in the pleadings and such other facts necessary to conduce to an accurate calculation of the earnings lost: BENIN RUBBER PRODUCERS LTD vs. OJO (1997) 9 NWLR (PT 521) 388 at 410 and FIRST BANK vs. MUKSAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (2017) LPELR (43143) 1 at 23. The lower Court expounded the law in this regard at page 500 of Volume II of the Records as follows: "Any claim for loss of earnings is a claim for special damages in the sense that full particulars must be given by the Plaintiff in his pleadings of his rate of earning and of such other facts as may be necessary to enable the Court to calculate as best and as accurately as it can, the actual amount of the Plaintiff's loss." It then continued and made reference to the facts pleaded and calculation with reference to fees in respect of secured credit transactions (Solicitors work), which it allowed; but was unable to come to the same conclusion with respect to fees for litigation. The Respondent/Cross Appellant's Amended Statement of Claim on which the matter went to trial at the lower Court is at pages 140-143 of Volume I of the Records.
HELD:
"The guiding principles for award of damages for breach of contract is that the damages awarded are those damages for the ordinary consequences which follow in the usual course of things from the breach, or those consequences which may reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered into the contract. Put differently, damages for loss which may be fairly and reasonably considered to arise naturally from the breach. The loss must be such that can be said to have been in the contemplation of the parties as the probable consequence of its breach. See HADLEY vs. BAXENDALE (1854) 9 Exchequer 341, AGBAJE vs. NATIONAL MOTORS NIGERIA LTD (1970) 2 ALR 266 at 273 and AHMED vs. CBN (2012) LPELR (9341) 1 at 18. By the Agreement between the parties, the Respondent/Cross Appellant was to be given all the legal works of the Appellant/Cross Respondent at a fee. It cannot be confuted that the ordinary consequences flowing from any breach of the agreement will be loss of the fees which would have been paid. Such is definitely within the contemplation of the parties and arising naturally from the breach of the Agreement. The lower Court, having rightly held, and as affirmed by this Court in the associated appeal number CA/L/227/2018, that the Appellant/Cross Respondent repudiated the Agreement; got it wrong when it held that the fees for litigation did not arise naturally from the breach." UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. CHIEF OLUDOTUN OLAJIDE KOLEOSO(2019) LPELR-47965(CA)Per OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Pp. 5-6, Paras. D-E)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The crux of the sole issue in this cross appeal is whether the lower Court should have awarded exemplary damages against the Appellant upon holding that it was negligent in not carrying out due diligence before it used the Respondent's property as security for the facility it granted Prime Grocers International Limited. In SONUGA vs. THE MINISTER, FCT (2010) LPELR (19789) 1 at 33-35, Garba, JCA, dealing with the guiding principles for award of exemplary damages stated as follows: "Exemplary damages are damages on an increased scale over general damages that will barely compensate a Plaintiff for the loss that he suffered where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of acts such as violence, oppression, malice, fraud or wanton or wicked conduct of the Defendant. Exemplary damages are such that they are usually awarded whenever the Defendant's conduct in the wrongful act committed against the Plaintiff, is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, such as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, flagrant disregard of the law etc.
"The law is trite that a Plaintiff would be entitled to general damages for proven trespass even without any specific loss arising from the wrongful act constituting the trespass. See ELIOCHIN (NIGERIA) LTD. VS. MBADIWE (1986) LPELR - 1119 (SC); GBEMISOLA VS. BOLARINWA (2014) LPELR - 22463 (SC). It is further the law that a plaintiff who has by evidence established that a Defendant is a trespasser is entitled without more to general damages for trespass. As a matter of fact, a claimant does not need to specifically plead general damages for the trial Court to make the award. It is to be further noted that there is no fixed rule by which to assess general damages. It is entirely at the discretion of the Court who should award a fair and reasonable compensation having regard to the circumstances of the particular loss. A successful plaintiff need not plead or prove any loss or quantum of loss before general damages can be awarded in his favour. The main consideration in an award of general damages is whether the plaintiff has successfully established a particular wrong done to him and once this is ascertained general damages will be awarded in his favour to ameliorate and assuage him for the wrong done and/or injury suffered." MARANATHA CONSULTANTS LIMITED & ANOR v. MRS. JOY YETUNDE DIRISU(2019) LPELR-47745(CA)Per OJO, J.C.A. (Pp. 30-31, Paras. A-A)
FACTS:
"The Appellants in their relief in the claim are seeking for N100,000,000 damages as exemplary damages. Such damages are awarded in situations such as this where a citizen has been oppressed by another which turns out to be a government official. In Eliochin (Nig.) Ltd & Ors vs. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 47 the Supreme Court held: "I have already stated the reason, which the Court of Appeal gave for refusing to award damages to the plaintiffs.
"The respondent claim in paragraph 21 (c) of its statement of claim is as follows: "N500,000,000 as general damages for the unwarranted and abrupt cancellation of claimant's orders as a result of the wrongful, invalid or oppressive conduct of the Defendant against the claimant." The object of an award of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff, as far as money can do so, for the damages, loss or injury he has suffered. The guiding principle is restitution in integrum. It envisages that a party which has been damnified by the act which is called in question must be put in the position he would have been if he had not suffered the wrong which he is now being compensated for. In other words, the loss inevitably and unavoidably flowing from the breach. See: Chief S.I. Agu Vs General Oil Ltd. (2015) LPELR -24613 (SC) @ 31-32 G-B; NEPA Vs R.O. Alli & Anor. (1992) 10 SCNJ 34; Ijebu-Ode L.G. Vs Adedeji Balogun & Co., Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.166) 136. In Ijebu-Ode Vs L.G. Adedeji Balogun & Co. Ltd. (supra), it was held, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC at 158 F-G: "In cases of breach of contract, assessment of damages is calculated on the loss sustained by the injured party which loss was either in the contemplation of the contract or is an unavoidable consequence of the breach." See also: Shell B.P. Vs Jammal Engineering Ltd. (1974) 4 SC 33, 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 542. It is also trite that an award of damages is within the discretionary powers of the Court. The exercise of such discretion must however be based on the evidence before the Court. See: British Airways Vs Atoyebi (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1424) 253; Hamza Vs Kure (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 630; Okoko Vs Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401." MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATION LIMITED v. CORPORATE COMMUNICATION INVESTMENT LIMITED(2019) LPELR-47042(SC) Per KEKEREEKUN, J.S.C. (P. 24, Paras. B-C) Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 50-51, Paras. D-F)
FACTS: