Damages (151)
HELD:
"the law does not impose any duty on a successful party, in a claim for general damages, to prove the said claim or even plead it, as the damages fall due, automatically, upon proof of liability of the defendant.
HELD:
"General damages are damages which the law implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of.
HELD:
"In the realm of damages for breach of contract, the authorities have established that there is no dichotomy between general and special damages.
HELD:
"The distinction between general damages and special damages is to be found in the area of pleading, proof and model of assessment of each of them.
HELD:
"General damages are compensation in money given to a successful Claimant for loss or injury suffered by him.
HELD:
"General damages have been defined as the kind of damages which the law presume to flow from the wrong complained of by the victim.
HELD:
"...Unlike special damages, the 1st Respondent is not under any duty to specifically plead and prove the damages suffered.
HELD:
"...On issue three, the Appellant's counsel is contesting the award of damages by the lower Court, not on the ground that the amount is excessive but rather on the ground that the lower Court cannot award damages against it alone when it was sued jointly and severally with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
HELD:
"it is settled law that general damages are always made as a claim at large.