Items filtered by date: Friday, 31 March 2023
TORT CLAIM - Whether the family/representative of a deceased person can claim damages for the death of the deceased under the Tort Law of Kaduna State where the claim was not specifically brought under the said law
HELD:
"The claim of the Respondent is that the negligent actions of the Appellant caused the death of his son which consequently caused him as a parent, loss, psychological trauma and shock.
"UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM" - The principle of ubi jus ibi remedium
HELD:
"The Respondent can rightly commence and sustain an action in negligence against the Appellant even though the victim is deceased.
CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S) - Condition(s) for granting a relief sought by a party and the duty of Court to determine the merits or otherwise of same; whether relief(s) claimed must be restated in the testimony of the claimant or his witness
HELD:
"...It is glaring from the record of this appeal that the trial Court did not see the need for respondent's verbal restatement of the reliefs already asked for in the statement claim in his testimony in open Court.
CAUSE(S) OF ACTION - What determines whether or not a cause of action survives the death of a party
HELD:
"Let me now consider the other argument that there was no cause for the respondent's action and that he had no right of action.
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT - Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over a matter challenging the executive/administrative action or decision of National Electric Power Authority
HELD:
"By virtue of S. 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the action for a declaration that the appellant's executive action of disconnecting electricity supply wires and leaving on the ground the live wires uninsulated is grossly negligent.
NEGLIGENCE - Effect of a negligent action(s)/decision(s)
HELD:
REPLY - Whether failure to file a reply to an argument will render such argument correct and valid
HELD:
"The failure of the respondent to reply to the appellant's argument that the claim for damages for negligence is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal High Court did not render the argument correct and sacrosanct.
